I

Chapter4

TheRight,theLeft,andtheLadderHowInequalityDividesOurPolitics

tmusthavebeendisorientingfortheBarondeGauville,surroundedbythefamiliarluxuryofthepalaceofVersailles,tofindhimselfsoclosetochaos.By1791

France’straditionalassembly,theEstatesGeneral,hadbeenreplacedbyonenewversionofparliamentafteranother,eachsplinteringintobickeringfactionsbeforecollapsingintothenextincarnation.KingLouisXVIvacillatedbetweenpersuasionandforceashestruggledtoremaininpossessionofhiscountryand,eventually,hishead.

Asthenewestversionofparliamentmetforthefirsttime,thememberssortedthemselvesamidtheconfusionintogroupsoflike-mindedmen.DeGauvillereported,“Webegantorecognizeeachother:thosewhowereloyaltoreligionandthekingtookuppositionstotherightofthe[king’s]chairsoastoavoidtheshouts,oaths,andindecenciesthatenjoyedfreereinintheopposingcamp.”Themilitantrevolutionarieswhowantedtooverthrowthemonarchy,andthosewhowerededicatedtotherationalethosoftheEnlightenmentratherthantheauthorityoftheChurch,meanwhile,driftedtotheleftside.Thosewithmoremoderateviewsoccupiedthecenteroftheroom.

Thoughunplanned,theseatingarrangementwasnotentirelyunpredictable.IntheoldEstatesGeneral,thekinghadinvitedtheclergy(thefirstestate)andthenobility(thesecondestate)tositathisright,andtheworkingpeople(thethirdestate)totakeseatsathisleft.Asinmanyculturesaroundtheworld,intheJudeo-Christiantraditionfavoredpartiesaregrantedseatsontheright.IntheBible,JesussitsattherighthandofGod.InFrenchgaucheliterallymeans“left,”butinEnglishweusethetermtomean“inelegant”or“unsophisticated,”muchlikethe“shouts,oaths,andindecencies”deGauvilledisdained.Similarly,Frenchàdroite(totheright)becametheEnglish“adroit,”meaning“skillful”or“talented.”BythetimedeGauvillewasdescribingeventsoftheFrenchRevolution,thekingwasnolongertellingthenoblemenwhere

63

tosit,yethissupportersseemedmorecomfortableathisright,andhisenemiesathisleft.

Intheweeksthatfollowed,writersreportingnewsoftheassemblybeganreferringtothevariousfactionswiththeshorthandof“theleft,”“theright,”and“thecenter.”“Right”and“left”thusbecameensconcedinourpoliticalvocabularyasdescriptionsforconservativesandliberals,respectively.IftheassemblyhallatVersailleshadbeenlaidoutdifferently,wemightspeaktodayofconservativesasthe“front”andliberalsasthe“rear.”

Despitetheiroriginsinhistoricalaccident,thelabelsretainsomeoftheiroriginalconnotation.Isthepoliticalrightgoodandtheleftbad?Thequestionis,goodforwhom?Fromtheperspectiveoftheking,thetraditionalistswhowantedtopreservethemonarchyandtheoldwaysofdoingthingsweregood,whilethosewhowantedtochangetherulesofsocietywerebad.Theywereindeedgoodandbad—butonlyfromthepointofviewofpeopleincommandintraditionalpowerstructures.Thatwastrueineighteenth-centuryFrance,anditistruetoday.

Itisnotalwaysobviouswhyaparticularissuelinesupwiththeliberalorconservativeperspective.Whyshouldsomeonewhosupportsawoman’srighttohaveanabortionalsowanttoraisetaxesonpeoplewithhighincomes?Whyshouldthesamepersonwhobelievesintherighttoownassaultriflesalsodistrustthescientificfindingsonclimatechange?Whywouldpeople’sattitudestowardillegalimmigrationbelinkedwiththeirviewsongaymarriage?

Politicalpsychologistshaveproposedalotofschemesovertheyearstoexplainthecorewaysinwhichconservativesandliberalsdiffer.Aretheytheproductofstrictversuspermissiveparenting?Afunctionofrigidversusfluidthinking?Religiousversussecularworldviews?PsychologistJohnJostreviewedthehistoricalperspectivesanddozensofempiricalstudiesandfoundthattheleftandtherightconsistentlydifferfromeachotherintwofundamentalways.

Thefirstandmostobviousisthatconservativesgenerallywanttopreservetraditionandthestatusquo,whileliberalswanttoseechangesinsociety.Thisdistinctionbetweentraditionandchangelooksdifferent,however,fromtheirrespectivepointsofview.Conservativesdon’tpreferthestatusquosimplyforthesakeofkeepingthingsthesame.Theytendtobelieve,likethephilosopherThomasHobbes,thatasocietyinchaosistheworstpossiblecondition.Conservativesarethereforesensitivetothreatstosocialorder,betheyexternal(rivalarmies)orinternal(potentialrevolutionaries).Civilorderisdifficulttoachieve,andconservativesbelieveweshouldworktosafeguardit.Thatusuallymeanstrustingintraditionalwaysofdoingthingsthathavebeentestedbytime.Ifthatmeansforgoingsomeopportunitiestoimprovesocietybychangingitsrules,itisapriceworthpaying.

64

Similarly,liberalsdon’twantchangejustforthesakeofchange,buttendtoviewsomeaspectsofsocietyasworkingwellandothersasworkingpoorly.Establishedwaysofdoingthingshaveledtoboth,sotheyarenotespeciallyimpressedwithtraditionandfeelcompelledtochangethethingstheythinkaredysfunctional.Theytendtohavemoreconfidencethanconservativesdointhepowerofhumanreasontofindrationalsolutionstoproblems.FollowinginthefootstepsofphilosopherslikeJean-JacquesRousseauandJohnLocke,theyaremotivatedtokeeprewritingtherulesofsocietyinordertokeepimprovingit.

Thesecondfundamentaldistinctionbetweenconservativesandliberalsistheirwillingnesstoacceptinequality.Again,mostconservativesdonotwantinequalityforitsownsake.Instead,theyviewitasanoutcomeofanemphasisonindividualrights,abilities,andresponsibilities.Whenindividualsoutcompeteothers,theresultisalwayssomedegreeofinequality.Contrarytotheperceptionsofmanyliberals,mostconservativesaren’tanimatedbytheideaofhierarchyitself.Theyjustaren’tbotheredbyitthewayliberalsare.

Liberals,contrarytotheperspectiveofmanyconservatives,arenothostiletotheideaofindividualrightsandresponsibilities,ormarketcompetition.Instead,theyseeindividualmeritasjustonefactoramongmanythatdeterminessuccessorfailureinacompetitivemarket.Theytendtoconsidertheeconomicsystemasawholeratherthanjusttheindividualplayerswithinit,whichmeanstakingintoaccountsuchfactorsasmonopolies,old-boynetworks,institutionalracismandsexism,andcyclesofadvantageanddisadvantagethatshapepeople’soutcomesforreasonsthathavenothingtodowithindividualvirtues.Theyhavenospecialloveof“biggovernment”andareoftenpuzzledbyconservatives’apparentobsessionwiththesizeofgovernment.Liberalsseebothgovernmentpoliciesandmarketsasuseful,butimperfect,toolsforimprovingsociety.

Ultimately,lifeistoocomplextoassessitfromasinglepointofview.Asliberalsliketoemphasize,weknowfromstatisticsandfromexperiencethatmostpeoplewhostartoutwithnothingenduppoor,andmostpeoplewhostartoffaffluentremainso.Nonetheless,asconservativesoftenpointout,individualtalentandresponsibilitycanbepowerful.Someexceptionalindividualsareabletotranscendpovertyandlimitedopportunitytoachievegreatsuccess.Whatistrueofasystemingeneralisnotnecessarilytrueofalltheindividualswithinit.Consideramurmurationofstarlings.

65

Figure4.1.Amurmurationofstarlings.

Eachbirdinthismarvelouslynamedflockfliesaccordingtoitsownself-interest.Bystayingwithintheflock,anindividualbirdisprotectedfromhawksandotherpredators.Nosinglebirdknowswheretheflockisheadingnext,andthereisnoleaderdirectingthegroup.Eachbirdsimplywatchesandlistenstoothersnearbyandtriestostayclosetothem.Whententhousandstarlingsallfollowthesamesimplerule,theresultisanastonishingshadowundulatingacrossthelandscape,awaveonemomentandawhirlpoolthenext,thensuddenlyaspiralinghelix,comingapartlikeamammothamoeba,thenmerging,wholeagain.AspoetRichardWilburputit,“Whatisanindividualthing?Theyroll/Likeadrunkenfingerprintacrossthesky!”

Whenyoufocusontheswarmasawhole,itappearstobeasingleorganism,anditisdifficulttokeeptrackoftheindividualswithinit.Andyetifyoufocusonthemovementsofanindividualstarling,itsbehaviorisnotthesameastheflockasawhole.Atanymoment,thebirdmaybemovingforwardwhentheflockismovingleft.Itmaybedivingwhenthecolumnisswirling.Likeavisualillusionthatregistersasaduckonemomentandarabbitthenext,itisimpossibletoseeboththeindividualsandthewholesimultaneously.

66

Thesameistrueofsocietiesandeconomies:Youcanfocusontheindividualorthesystem,butit’shardtoseebothatonce.Conservativesfocusontheindividualswithinthesystem.Thisyoungmanisresponsibleforgettingajob.Thatyoungwomanshouldmakechoicesthatenablehertoavoidbeingasinglemother.Iftheydon’t,thentheysuffertheconsequences.Liberalslookatthesystemandperceivethatplaceswherepovertyisthenormjustkeepreproducinggenerationsofpoverty.Evenwhenkidsworkhard,fewcanescape.Ifyouwanttopredictwhogetsajoborwhobecomesasinglemother,startbyassessingtheirparents’incomesandthequalityoftheirschools.

WesawinChapter3thatbothperspectivesareoversimplifications,becauseinequalityinthesocietyaffectsthebehaviorsofindividuals,whichleadsinturntogreaterinequality.Conservativesandliberalsgenerallyagreethatindividualresponsibility,talent,andhardworkareimportantfactorsinachievingsuccess,andtheyagreethatcontextmattersaswell.Onegroup’smainemphasis,however,istheother’sbackground.Whenthesystemisinthespotlight,hierarchyandinequalitycomesharplyintofocus.Whentheindividualisinthespotlight,hierarchyandinequalityfallwheretheymay.

Wehaveseenthattraditionversuschangeandhierarchyversusequalityaretwofundamentalprinciplesthatorientmoralcompasses.Yetthereisnophilosophicalreasonwhythosewhoprefertraditionalsohavetoaccepthierarchy,orwhythosewhopreferchangeshouldalsodesireequality.Jostandcolleaguespointoutthatitisnotphilosophythatmakestheseneedlesalign,buthistory.SincetheEnlightenment,manyWesternsocietieshavegraduallybecomelesshierarchical.Monarchieshavegivenwaytodemocracies.Slaveryhasbeenabolished.Womenandblackpeoplehavegainedtherighttovoteandbecameequal,atleastintheeyesofthelaw.Inthetwenty-firstcenturywehaveseenequalityextendedfurthertogaymenandlesbians,transgenderindividuals,andothers.Becauseofthesehistoricaltrends,theoldpowerstructuresthatremaintendtobethemorehierarchical,whilenewonesaremoreequal.Apreferencefortraditionisthereforemorelikelytobeaccompaniedbyatoleranceforinequality,andpreferencesforchangearemoreopentogreaterequality.

Afascinatinghistoricalexceptionshowsthatthelinkbetweenpreferencesfortraditionalpowerstructuresandinequalityisnotinevitable.PsychologistSamMcFarlandstudiedthebeliefsofpeopleinRussiainthe1990s.Afterdecadesofcommunistgovernmentthatwasauthoritarianandyetpromotedrelativeeconomicequality,thebreakupoftheSovietUnionledtodramaticincreasesininequality.Itwasaturbulenttimeinwhichcapitalistmarketstookholdwithlittleornoregulation.Economicsecurityfortheaveragepersonevaporated,whileafewwell-connectedindividualsbecamebillionaires.McFarlandandhiscolleaguesmeasuredpeople’sopinionsabouttheneweconomicconditionsandthedegreeofsupportfortheold

67

communistdays.TheyalsoassessedRussians’preferencesfortraditionalauthorityandstabilityoverchange.InRussia,unlikeNorthAmericaandWesternEurope,arespectfortraditionwasstronglycorrelatedwithadesireforgreaterequality.Alongingfortheancienrégimecanthereforehavedifferentmeanings,dependingonthenatureofthatregime.

Wehavebeentalkingaboutliberalsandconservativesasdifferenttypesofpeople,andofcourse,tosomeextent,theyare.Butcategorizingpeoplebytheirpoliticsisanotherwaythatourstereotypesofpeoplearemuchmorerigidandextremethantheactualpeoplethemselves.Allofus,fromtimetotime,findourselvesthinkingalongthelinesof“theotherparty,”whenthetruthisthat,politicallyspeaking,weallcontainmultitudes.

MostdayswhenIamatwork,IwalkalongFranklinStreet,ChapelHill’smainstrip.OnanytripalongFranklintogetlunchoracupofcoffee,youcanexpecttobeaskedformoneybyapanhandler.Ihavebeensurprisedbymyownreactionstotheseovertures.SometimesIhandoverabitofmoney;onmostdaysIjustsay,“Sorry,”andkeepwalking.Butmoredisturbingtomethanmyinconsistentbehavioraremyinconsistentthoughts.SomedayswhenIhear,“Sparechange?”IlookupandIseesomeonewhoishavingahardtime.Iseesomeonewhoprobablydidn’thavemuchopportunitystartingout,whohadmorethanhisfairshareofbadluck,andwhoneedsalittlehelpwhenheisathislowest.Onotherdays,Iseesomeonewhoissoirresponsiblethatheislyinginthebedthathehasmadeforhimself.Someonewhomightbegainfullyemployedifheputasmucheffortintogettingupinthemorningandgoingtoworkashedoesintopesteringother,workingpeoplefortheirmoney.SometimesIhaveboththesereactionsinthespanofanhour.WhydoesourstreamofconsciousnesssometimesseemasifithasflippedchannelsbetweenPaulKrugmanandRushLimbaugh?

PsychologistsAaronKayandRichardEibacharguethatweeachcarryaroundan“ideologicaltoolbox”inourheads.Wethinkofourpoliticalbeliefsasastablesetofprinciplessupportedbyasolidfoundationoflogicandfacts.Butinfacttheyaremorelikeanassortmentoftoolsthatwechooseamongdependingonthedemandsofaparticularmoment.Sometimestheideologicalprinciplesweturntodependonwhatwehavebeenthinkingaboutlately.IfIreadanewsstoryaboutacrimecommittedbyahomelesspersonafewminutesbeforemywalkdownFranklinStreet,IammorelikelytothinkaboutthenextpanhandlerIseeinnegativeterms,simplybecausethoseideashavebeenbroughtrecentlytomind.Psychologistscallthisphenomenon“accessibility.”LikeGoogle,themindkeepsrecentlyusedideasattheforefrontofconsciousnesssothatwecanaccessthemeasilyatamoment’snotice.Accessibilitydoesnotfollowrulesoflogicalconsistency.IfIshowyouthewords“ocean”and“moon,”thenaskyoutonameagoodlaundrydetergent,youarelikelytosay,“Tide.”

68

Itdoesn’tmatterthatthelaundrydetergentislogicallyunrelatedtooceansandmoons.Havingusedaninterconnectedwebofideasrecently,youaremorelikelytotravelalongthatnetworkinthefuture.

Asecondreasonthatourinternalmonologuescantogglebetweenliberalandconservativechannelsisthatwedonotkeeptrackofthelogicalconsistencyofourthoughtsthewaywebelievewedo.PsychologistsLarsHall,PetterJohansson,andcolleaguesshowedhowflexibleourpoliticalopinionscanbeinastrikingstudyofwhattheycall“choiceblindness.”TheysurveyedvotersinSwedenaboutarangeofcontroversialissuesduringanationalelectioncampaign.LiketheUnitedStates,Swedenisfirmlydividedbetweenliberalandconservativeparties.AlthoughbotharewelltotheleftoftheirAmericancounterparts,citizensareevenlydistributedbetweenthem,withonlyabout10percentundecidedatthetimeofthestudy.Thesurveyaskedabouttwelvedivisiveissuesonwhichthetwopartiesdisagreed—forexample,shouldthegasolinetaxbeincreased?shouldSwedenrestartitsnuclearenergyprogram?—andtheresearchsubjectsindicatedtheiragreementordisagreementwitheachoption.Theyalsoindicatedhowlikelytheyweretovoteforeachparty,howcertaintheywereabouttheiropinions,andhowengagedtheywereinpolitics.

Thesurveywasdeliveredtoeachparticipantonaclipboard.Thatmightsoundlikeamundanedetail,butitwasactuallythekeytotheexperimenter’smischievousplan.Aseachsubjectfilledinhisanswers,theexperimenterwatchedhimandsecretlycompletedanothersurveythatwasidentical,exceptforonesmalldetail:Theexperimenterreversedthesubject’sanswerstohalfofthequestions.Whenthesubjecthandedoverhiscompletedsurvey,theexperimentertookit,madesomenotesinanotebook,andthenhandedtheclipboardback.Butthroughamagician’ssleightofhand,theexperimenterhandedthesubjectthereversedsurveyinstead.Inacontrolcondition,theoriginalsurveywasreturnedtothesubjects.

Thesubjectswerethenaskedtoexplainwhytheyexpressedtheopinionstheydidforeachquestion.Duringthisdiscussion,theywereaskediftheywantedtocorrectoradjustanyoftheiranswersbeforetalkingaboutthem.Astonishingly,47percentofthesubjectswhoreceivedthereversedanswersdidnotnoticeanychangesatall.Oftheother53percent,mostpeopledetectedonlyoneortwo.Onlyonepersonwassuspiciousthattheexperimentershadswitchedhisanswers.Therestsaidthattheyhadmisreadthequestionoraccidentallymarkedthewronganswer.Whentheydiscussedtheiranswers,subjectswhofailedtoobservetheswitchgaveperfectlyreasonableargumentsforpositionstheyhadn’toriginallytaken.

Thisisoneofthoseexperimentswhereitisimpossibletoputyourselfinthepositionofthesubjects.Wesimplycan’timaginetryingtoexplainwhytaxesshouldbecutwhenwejustsaidtheyshouldberaised,orviceversa.Surelywewouldneverfallforthatsortoftrickery,andyetnearlyhalfofthepeopleinthestudydid.Were

69

theyjustbeingpolite,ratherthancorrectingtheexperimenter?Ifso,thenacceptingthereversedopinionsastheirownshouldhavenoeffectonsubjects’actualbeliefs.Totestthisidea,theexperimentersaskedsubjectsattheendofthestudytorate,again,howlikelytheyweretovoteforoneofthetwopartiesintheupcomingelection.Inthecontrolcondition,theanswerswerevirtuallyidenticaltovotingintentionsexpressedatthebeginningofthestudy.Butinthereversedcondition,subjectsshiftedtheirvotingintentionssignificantlyinthedirectionofthereversedanswers.

Bizarrely,theseshiftswerejustasstrongforthosewhoexpressedgreatcertaintyintheirvoteatthestartofthesurveyasforthosewhoweremoretentative.Theshiftswereequivalentforthosehighlyengagedinpoliticsandthedisengaged;forliberalsandconservatives;formenandwomen;foryoungandold.Thisfinding,thoughstriking,isnotananomaly.HallandJohansson’steamhasrepeatedthesamesleight-of-handexperimentsusingmanykindsofpreferences,frommoralprinciplestoattractivenessratingsofphotographstothetasteofjamandtea.Ineverycase,alargepercentage—typicallybetween50percentand80percent—failtonoticetheswitchandgoontogiveplausible-soundingreasonsforchoicestheydidnotmake.

Attheendofeachofthesestudies,theexperimentersrevealtheoriginalsurveyandreversedresponses,andthesubjectsaretypicallysurprisedandbemusedattheirownbehavior.Thebeliefstheyhadtakentobestronglyheldturnedouttobepropsthattheycouldpickupandsetasideasneeded.Thesestudiesdonotdemonstratethatpeoplelackpoliticalconvictions,buttheydoshowthat,inatleastsomecases,thereasonswearticulatetoexplainourdecisionsarenottherealbasisofthosedecisions.Suchexperimentscastdoubtonwhetherourpoliticalprinciplesreallyformthebedrockforouropinionsasweassume.Ourprinciplesare,atbest,justonesourceofinformationthatshapesourpoliticalbeliefsatanymoment.

Dailylife,ofcourse,rarelyinvolvessneakypsychologistsplottingtoupendouropinions.Simplydirectingpeople’sattentiontodifferentaspectsoftheirownlivescanhaveasimilareffect.InonestudypsychologistChristopherBryanandcolleaguessurveyedundergraduatestudentsatStanfordabouttheirpoliticalopinions,includingsuchtopicsasuniversalhealthcarecoverage,aflattax,welfareandunemploymentbenefits,thedeathpenalty,andotherissuesonwhichliberalsandconservativesdisagree.Beforetheycompletedthesurvey,however,thestudentswereaskedtospendtenminutestellingthestoryofhowtheygotintoStanford.Halfwereaskedspecificallytocommentontheroleoftheirown“hardwork,self-disciplineandwisedecisions,”whiletheotherwereaskedtocommentontheroleof“chance,opportunityandhelpfromothers.”GainingadmissiontoaneliteuniversitylikeStanfordrequiresbothindividualmeritandgoodfortune,sobothgroupshadplentytowriteabout.

70

Thisseeminglyminorshiftinattentionledtosubstantialdifferencesinpoliticalattitudesonthesurvey.Thegroupaskedtoconsidertheirpersonalmeritexpressedmoreconservativeopinionsthanthegroupthatcontemplateditsgoodfortune.Regardlessoftheirideologieswhentheywalkedinthedoor,simplythinkingabouttheroleofindividualmeritoropportunitiesintheirownlivesaffectedtheirpoliticalviewpoints,atleastforawhile.

Emotioncanbeevenmorepowerfulthanthoughts.RecallwhenyoufirstheardabouttheplanesthatflewintotheWorldTradeCenteronSeptember11,2001.MostAmericans(andmanynon-Americans,too)rememberexactlywheretheywereandwhattheyweredoingatthatmoment.Forme,itwasanoldfriendcallingfromManhattantosayhewasfine.Iwokebefuddledinanearliertimezone,turningonCNNtowatchasthesecondplanestruck.Inmymemory,thefogofwakingisfusedwiththeconfusionoftheevent.MymentalimagesofthesmolderingwhitetowersagainstabrightblueskyarepunctuatedbymyquestioningwhetherIwasdreamingsomethingthatcouldnotpossiblybehappening.

Inthedaysthatfollowedtheterroristattack,GeorgeW.Bush’sapprovalratingrosefrom51percentto90percent,thehighestrecordedpresidentialapprovalratinginhistory.MillionsofAmericanswhowereantagonistictothepresidentonSeptember10reversedtheiropinionsalmostovernight.The9/11attackswerenotthefirstexternalthreatAmericaendured.Similar,thoughlesspronounced,“rally’roundtheflageffects”havebeendocumentedforotherevents,likethebombingofPearlHarborortheIranhostagecrisis.Historyshows,however,thatconservativeadministrationshavebenefitedmorefromthiskindofrallyingthanliberaladministrations.IfJostisrightthatpeopleadoptconservativeideologiesasaresponseagainstthreatstothesocialorder,thenthereshouldbeaspecificlinkbetweenthreatsandsupportforconservativeideas.

Infact,therearedecades’worthofstudiessupportingthatassociation.Manyofthemexaminecorrelationsbetweenpeople’spersonalitiesandtheirpoliticalbeliefs.Instudyafterstudy,subjectswhoseetheworldasathreateninganddangerousplacetendtobemorepoliticallyconservative.Thosewhoseetheworldassafe,andwhoaremotivatedbyexploringandtryingnewexperiences,tendtosupportmoreliberalviews.Ofcourse,thesecorrelationsleaveopenthequestionofcauseandeffect.Dotheseemotionaltendenciespredisposepeopletowardparticularpoliticalideologies,asthetheorypredicts?Ordoconservativeversusliberalmind-setsleadpeopletotuneintodifferentemotionalchannels?Oraretheybothjustareflectionofsomeotherfactorthatcausesboth?

Severalexperimentshavebeguntoisolatethespecificrelationshipbetweenemotionsandideologies.Inonestudy,psychologistsAlanLambert,LauraScherer,andcolleaguesmadepeoplefeelthreatenedbyshowingthemavideodocumentary

71

aboutthe9/11attacks.Comparedwithacontrolgroupthatsimplycompletedsomewordpuzzles,the9/11groupexpressedgreatersupportforPresidentBush,morehawkishattitudesaboutthewarinIraq,andmorelikingforpatrioticsymbolsliketheAmericanflagandtheStatueofLiberty.PsychologistMarkLandauandcolleaguesaskedagroupofresearchsubjectstovividlyimaginewhatitwouldbeliketodie.Theyinstructedthemtodescribetheirfeelingsindetailandtoenvisionwhatwouldhappentotheirbodyafterdeath.Comparedwithacontrolgroup,thedeathgroupwasmoresupportiveofPresidentBushandlesssupportiveofJohnKerry,whowasrunningagainsthiminthe2004electionatthetimeofthestudy.

Fieldstudiesleadtothesameconclusionasthelaboratorystudies.Theyearsfollowingthe9/11attackswereanxiousonesforAmericans.ThenewlyformedDepartmentofHomelandSecurityintroducedaTerrorAdvisorySystemcompletewithacolor-codedguidetoalertcitizenswhethertheriskofaterrorattackwaslow(green),elevated(yellow),high(orange),orsevere(red).SociologistRobbWilleranalyzedpresidentialapprovalratingsbetween2001and2004andfoundthatwhenevertheterroralertincreased,so,too,didapprovalratingsforPresidentBush.Whenthealertssubsided,presidentialapprovalfellwiththem.Theebbandflowofthreatsfromonedaytothenextpullsourideologiesintow.

Wenormallyspeakofconservativesandliberals,notconservativemomentsandliberalmoments.Thetruthisthatweexperienceboth.Sometimeswethinkthroughanissuebasedonourprinciplesandendupatanideologicalconclusion.Atothertimeswetakeourcuesfromaparticularsituationandfindanideologythatfitsthemoment.Whenwereflectonourownbeliefs,itcanbenearlyimpossibletotellthedifferencebetweenthetwoapproaches.

Ofallthecuesthatnudgeustotheleftortheright,theroleofwealth,poverty,andinequalityhasbeenoneofthemostvexingtopicsinrecentmemory.Ourculturehasconflictingnarrativesabouthowthehavesandhave-notsdifferintheirpolitics.Considerthelivesoftwoverydifferentindividuals.

Earldrivesatruckforaliving,andmostlymakesdaylongtripsliketheonestohaulfrontloadersandexcavatorsfromMurfreesborotoFortWayne.Whenhegetshomeintheevening,helikestoopenacanofbeerandwatchthelocalnews.Ontheweekends,heviewsNASCARraces.Whenhemissesone,hechecksuponthedriverstandingsinthenewspaper,andstillhasthepaperversiondelivered.Apartfromthat,hedoesn’thavealotofhobbies.Whenhisyoungestchildlefthome,hethoughthewouldtakeupgardening,buthisweekendsaremoreandmoreoccupiedwithworkingonhisaginghousetrailer.He’sgotfarmoremoneyintheKenworthrigparkedoutsidethaninhishome.Hehasrarelyusedthesleepercabininthetruck,butit’salwaysanoptionifthehouse’sroofgetstoobad.

72

Davidisonhisthirdlandscaperthisyear.Thefirstwasunreliable;thesecondkeptchoppingofftheheadsofthelawnsprinklerswiththemower.Nowhislawnisfinallygettinginshapetosuithisnewlybuilthomeonthecul-de-sac.Helikestosayhedesignedithimself,butwhathemeansisthatheandhiswife,Andrea,pickedthefinishesfromthelaminatedpagesofthebuilder’sbook.Theysavedforthehouseforfiveyearsandwantedittobeperfect,withfourbedroomsplusanoffice,becausetheyworkalotathomeintheevenings.There’salsoanextraroomthattheyuseforfitness,sothattheirfreeweightsandyogamatsarealwaysattheready.Buttheyareproudestofthescreenedporch,wheretheydrinkcoffeeinthemorningsfromDavid’snewestgadget,whichsiphonswaterthroughaseriesofglasstubeslikeanineteenth-centurysciencekit.Astheysip,DavidreadsthenewsonhisphoneandAndrealistenstoNPR.Latelythey’vebeendiscussinginvestingmoreforretirement.

It’samazinghowmuchwecantellaboutpeoplefromtheselittleglimpsesintotheirlives.Aftersuchabriefintroduction,doyoufeelthatyouknowotherthingsaboutEarlandDavid?Suchas,who’smorelikelytogooutforsushi?Whocommunicateswithfamilymembersbyyellingacrossthehouse,andwhowalksintothenextroomandspeaksquietly?Whospentmonthsagonizingoverwhichschooltosendtheirchildrento?

WouldyoubesurprisedtolearnthatEarlisaborn-againChristianandthatheopposessame-sexmarriage,butDavidthinksthatgaypeopleshouldbeabletowed?YoumightalsonotbesurprisedtodiscoverthatDavidsupportslawstorestricthandgunownership,butEarlsupportstheNRA.OrthatEarlprefersa“smallgovernment”andthinksthatincometaxesshouldbecut.

Youknowtheanswers,ofcourse.Theyaresuppliedbytheimagesofconservativesandliberalsrenderedinfinedetailinourheads.Wecanenvisiontheconservativespackingthefamilyofftochurchinthepickuptrucktothetuneofcountrymusic.Wecanimaginetheliberalsreturningfromthefarmers’market,carefulnottoblemishtheirheirloomtomatoesastheydrivehomeinthePrius,listeningtoapodcastofDavidSedaris.Youcanevendistinguishtheirideologiesintheirconsumptionpatterns.LiberalsdriveLandRoversandLexuses,whileconservativespreferPontiacsandBuicks.LiberalsdrinkSamAdamsLight,whileconservativesdrinkBud.LiberalseatkalesaladsatPanera,whileconservativeseatchicken-friedsteaksatCrackerBarrel.

Thisdivisionbetweenliberalelitesandworking-classconservativesseemstobereflectedinvotingpatternsaswell.Forexample,whodoyouthinkismorelikelytohavevotedforBarackObama—EarlorDavid?Thisdivisionbetweenliberalelitesandworking-classconservativesposesabigpuzzle.Asmanywritershaveargued,peopleseemtovoteagainsttheirownself-interests.Lesswell-offconservativesvoteforleaderswhopasstaxcutsthatmainlybenefitthewealthywhilecutting

73

governmentbenefitsthathelpthepoor.Oneexplanationforthisparadox,asrecountedinThomasFrank’sbestsellingbookWhat’stheMatterwithKansas?,isthatasmallnumberofwealthyelitesintheRepublicanPartyhavedupedworking-classAmericansintovotingforpoliciesthatfavortherichbyrilingthemupwithconcernsabout“God,guns,andgays.”Theseculturalissuesarousesomuchanger,thetheorygoes,thatpeoplewillvoteforeconomicpoliciesthatdonotbenefitthem.

ThesatiricalnewssiteTheOnionperfectlysummedupthissentimentfollowingGeorgeW.Bush’sreelectioninanarticleheadlined“Nation’sPoorWinElectionforNation’sRich”:

“TheRepublicanparty—thepartyofindustrialmega-capitalists,corporatefinanciers,powerbrokers,andthemoneyedelite—wouldliketothanktheundereducatedruralpoor,thestrugglingblue-collarworkersinMiddleAmerica,andtheGod-fearingunderprivilegedminoritieswhovotedGeorgeW.Bushbackintooffice,”KarlRove,senioradvisortoBush,toldreportersatapressconferenceMonday.“Youhaveselflesslysacrificedyourwell-beingandvotedagainstyourowneconomicinterest.Forthis,wehumblythankyou.”AddedRove:“Youhaveactedbeyondthecallofduty—or,forthatmatter,goodsense.”

Thetroubleisthatthiswholeaccountiswrong.It’snotonlywrong,butit’salmostperfectlybackward.

Itissimplynottruethatmostpoorpeoplevoteconservativeandmostrichpeoplevoteliberal.Farfromit.Thefactisthatthehigheraperson’sincomeis,themorelikelyheistovoteRepublican.TherichestthirdofthepopulationvotesmoreRepublicanthanthemiddlethird,whovotemoreRepublicanthanthebottomthird.

PoliticalscientistAndrewGelmanhasdocumentedthesetrendsusingdatafromtheAmericanNationalElectionsStudiesandtheNationalAnnenbergElectionSurvey,aswellasfromstateandnationalexitpolls.ThesesurveysarecarriedoutusingpainstakingmethodstoguaranteethattheyarerepresentativeoftheAmericanpopulation,andtheyalltellthesamestory.Althoughnoincomegroupismonolithic,thetrendisclear:Thericheryouare,themorelikelyyouaretocallyourselfaRepublicanandtovoteRepublican.Thepooreryouare,themorelikelyyouaretocallyourselfaDemocratandtovoteDemocrat.

74

Figure4.2.Electoralmapofthe2004presidentialelection.DarkstatesindicateRepublicanwins,lightstatesindicateDemocratwins.AdaptedfromGelman(2006).

Visithttp://bit.ly/2mTrRWSforalargerversionofthisimage.

Considertheelectoralmap,showninFigure4.2,forthe2004presidentialelection.DarkstatesvotedforGeorgeW.BushandlightstatesvotedforJohnKerry.Thisisonesourceofourmistakenimagesofrichandpoorvoters.WelookataffluentcoastalstateslikeNewYorkandCaliforniaandseeapopulationoflatte-sippingliberals.Welookatthepoorredstatesinthemiddleofthecountryandpicturethemasthehomeofpoor,God-fearingconservatives.ButasGelmanpointsout,thesestate-levelsummariesignoretheincomesoftheindividualswithinthosestates.Ifwebreakdownthevotetalliesbytheincomesofthevoters,weseeanentirelydifferentpicture.

75

Figure4.3.Whattheelectoralmapofthe2004presidentialelectionwouldlooklikeifwecountedonlythevotesofthepoor(top)andrich(bottom).DarkstatesindicateRepublicanwins,lightstatesindicateDemocratwins.AdaptedfromGelman(2006).

Visithttp://bit.ly/2oDisPRforalargerversionofthisimage.

76

ThemapsinFigure4.3showthesameelectoralmapofthe2004election,redrawnbasedontheincomesofthevoters.Thetopimageshowswhattheelectoralmapwouldlooklikeifwecountedonlythevotesofpoorpeople—alandslidevictoryforDemocrats.Thesecondimageshowswhattheelectoralmapwouldlooklikeifwecountedonlythevotesoftherich—alandslidewinfortheRepublicans.Moneymatters,andintheoppositedirectionfromourstereotypicalimagesofredandblueAmericans.

Whatofthedifferencesintastesandstylesbetweenliberalsandconservatives?Politicalcampaignadvertisershavespentalotoftimecollectingdataontheconsumerpreferencesofvotersineachparty.ItturnsoutthatLandRoversandLexusesaretwoofthemostRepublicancarsthereare.LandRoverowners,forexample,favortheRepublicanPartyovertheDemocraticPartybyabout30percentagepoints.PontiacandBuickowners,incontrast,skewDemocratic.YoumaybesurprisedtolearnthatChevy,Ford,andVolvoareallevenlysplit.

Thestereotypicalimagesofpartisandininghabitshavebeenshowntobemistaken,too.BothCrackerBarrelandPaneraattractmoreRepublicansthanDemocrats.DemocratsapparentlypreferGoldenCorralandDunkin’Donuts(whoknew?).Weevengetthebeerswrong.Contrarytopopularbelief,RepublicansloveSamAdamsLightandDemocratsdrinkmostoftheBudweiser.Ourlatte-sipping,farmers’market–shoppingliberalsmightbehorrifiedtolearnthatthemostDemocraticbeerofallisMilwaukee’sBest.ThemostRepublicanbeerofallisn’tevenmadeinAmerica:It’stheDutchimportAmstelLight.

Typecastingconsumptionpatternsbasedonpoliticalaffiliationisn’talwayswrong.DemocratsreallydobuymostofthePriuses,andRepublicansreallydowatchmoreFoxNews.Buttheseexpressionsoftastearedirectlyrelatedtothepoliticalideologiesthatmattertomembersofeachparty.Peoplechoosehybridsbecausetheyareconcernedaboutclimatechange.PeopletuneintoFoxNewsbecauseitpresentstheright-wingperspectivestheywanttohear.Aswedriftfurtherawayfromactualpoliticalissues,however,ourimagesofliberalsandconservativesbecomeflimsierandturnintoemptystereotypesthataremorelikelytomisleadus.

Asstrangeasthisallsoundstothoseofusaccustomedtostandardconceptionsofliberalelitesandsalt-of-the-earthconservatives,thepatternsoutlinedbyGelmanmakeperfectsensetoeconomistsandpoliticalscientists.Everycapitalisteconomyintheworldhassomedegreeoffreemarketcompetition,aswellassomedegreeofmarketregulationandtaxation.Bothexistonacontinuum,andnoseriousthinkerontheleftorrightbelievesyoucanentirelyeliminateeitherone.Taxratescloseto100percentcompletelystiflemotivationandinnovation.Thecollapseofcommunistsystemsinthetwentiethcenturyisgenerallyseenasevidencethatextremelevelsofgovernmentregulationandtaxationcannotcompetewithfreemarketeconomies.At

77

theotherextreme,anentirelyunregulatedmarketwouldquicklyleadtomonopolies,whichwoulddefeatthepurposeofmarketcompetition.Lackoftaxationwouldleadtothedeteriorationofroadsandotherinfrastructure,aswellasmilitarydefense.

Intherealworld,marketeconomiesexistinamiddlegroundbetweentheseextremes.Everycapitalistcountryhassomeformofregulation,someformoftaxation,andsomeformofsafetynetforthoseatthebottom.Economicdebatesbetweenliberalsandconservativesareultimatelyaboutpushingtheneedlealittlemoreinonedirectionortheother.Conservativepoliciesaimtopromotethefreemarket,whileliberalonesseekgreatertaxationtosupportsharedinfrastructureandsafetynetprograms.

Economistshavearguedfordecadesthatrationalpoliticalchoices(rationalinthesenseofnarrowlydefinedself-interest)dependonhowmuchmoneyyouhave.Whenitcomestoissueslikesharedinfrastructure,suchasroadsandmilitarydefense,everyonebenefitsaboutthesame.Butsafetynetprogramshelpthepoormorethantherich,sothemoremoneyyouearn,themoresenseitmakestosupportlowertaxesandlessredistributionofwealth.Thelessmoneyyouearn,themoreincentiveyouhavetosupporthighertaxationandredistribution.Inthisframework,peopleseemtoconformtoeconomists’imageofrational,calculatingagentsmakingdecisionsbasedontheireconomicself-interest.

Theyappeartofitthatmodel,thatis,untilyouassesspeople’sunderstandingofwhatisintheirself-interest.Inonestudy,researcherssurveyedpeoplewhowererecipientsofavarietyofgovernment-subsidizedbenefits.Theyaskedthesubjectsasimplequestion:Haveyoueverusedagovernmentsocialprogram?Remarkably,nearlyhalfbelievedthattheyhadnot.FortypercentofthosereceivingMedicare,forexample,deniedeverobtaininggovernmentbenefits.Thesamewasclaimedby47percentofthosereceivingtheEarnedIncomeTaxCredit.Morethanhalfofpeoplereceivinggovernment-subsidizedstudentloanssaidtheyhadnottakenanygovernmentbenefits.Thesesubjectsweren’tlying.Medicarerecipients,forexample,wouldacknowledgethattheyhadreceivedMedicare,buttheyjustdidn’tbelievethatithadanythingtodowiththegovernment.Surveyslikethissuggestthatpeoplehavealmostnoideawhethergovernmentprogramsareintheireconomicself-interest.

Maybepeopledon’tunderstandtheextentofgovernmentbenefits,butaretheyawareofwhetherraisingorloweringtaxesbenefitsthem?PoliticalscientistLarryBartelsaskedhowwellpeopleknowwhatisintheirself-interestwhenitcomestotaxcuts.Hisanswerisbestsummedupinthetitleofthearticlehewroteabouthisresults:“HomerGetsaTaxCut.”BartelsstudiedtheopinionsofAmericansregardingthetaxcutspassedduringtheGeorgeW.Bushadministration.Thesemeasureshadmajorconsequences,amountingtotrillionsofdollars.Still,whenaskedwhethertheyfavoredthecuts,opposedthem,orhadn’tthoughtabouttheissue,40percentof

78

respondentssaidtheyhadn’tthoughtaboutit.Whenaskedfactualquestionsaboutthecutsandtheirconsequences,mostpeopleeitherdidn’tknowtheanswersorgotthemwrong.

Noteverybodyisapoliticalnewsjunkie,ofcourse,soBartelstriedtodeterminewhetherpeoplemighthavemoreknowledgeabouttaxcutsiftheyweremoreknowledgeableaboutpoliticsingeneral.Thesurveyincludedaseven-questionquiztomeasurehowconversantwiththetopictherespondentswere.Thequestionswerenotespeciallydifficult.One,forexample,askedwhatpositionDickCheneyheld(hewasvicepresidentatthetime);anotheraskedwhoTonyBlairwas.Whileknowledgeabouttaxcutswashigheramongpeoplewhowerewellinformedaboutpolitics,unfortunatelyveryfewpeoplewereinthatcategory.Mostsubjectsgotmorequestionswrongthanright.Ifthequestionnairehadbeenaclassroomtest,mostAmericanswouldhaveflunked.

How,then,doestheaverageAmericanmanagetovoteinwaysthatbenefithimeconomically?Onecluecomesfromthepoweroffeelingpoor,aswesawinChapter1.Thatfeelingdependsnotjustonone’sownwealthbutalsoonhowitcomparestothatofotherpeople,aswesawinChapter2.Gelman’sresearchonvotingandincomeprovidesoneclueabouttheimportanceofrelativecomparisons.ThetendencyfortherichtovoteRepublicanisstrongerinpoorstatesthaninrichones.So,ifyouareawealthyMississippian,youaremuchmorelikelytovoteRepublicanthanifyouhavethesamewealthinNewYorkorConnecticut.Althoughthereasonisnotcompletelyunderstood,Isuspectithastodowiththedifferentkindsofrelativecomparisonspeoplemakeinrichandpoorstates.Ifyouearn$200,000ayearinBiloxi,thenyoulikelyfeelmuchricherthanmostpeoplearoundyou.ButifyoumakethesameincomeinManhattan,youmayfeelbarelymiddleclass.

MycolleaguesandIsuspectedthatthosesocialcomparisonsmightaffectthewaypeoplethinkaboutpoliticalissuesmorethantheiractualwealthdoes.Wefocusedonthekindsofpoliciesthateconomistsarguearemostclearlylinkedtoeconomicself-interest:taxationandredistributionofwealth.Totestthatidea,wesetouttochangepeople’ssocialcomparisonstoseewhetherchangesinpoliticalopinionsfollowed.Weaskedagroupofparticipantstoansweralongcomputerizedsurveyabouttheirincomes,spendinghabits,shoppingtastes,andevenpersonalitytraits.Wethenprovidedthemwithcomputerizedfeedback.Althoughtheparticipantsthoughtthatthefeedbackwasbasedontheirsurveyanswers,inrealitywerandomlyassignedthemtoreceiveoneoftwokindsofresponse.Thefirstgroupwastoldthattheyhadmoremoneythanmostotherpeoplewhoweresimilartothemintheirdemographicsandpersonality.Theothergroupwastoldthattheyhadlessmoneythanmostotherswhowerecomparabletothem.Wethenaskedbothgroupsaseriesofquestionsabouttheirviewsonpoliticalissues,includingtaxationandredistribution.

79

Aswepredicted,participantswhofeltrelativelyrichexpressedlesssupportforredistribution,whilethosewhoweremadetofeelrelativelypoorbecamemoresupportive.Thesetwogroupshadthesameaverageincomeandthesameaveragelevelofeducation.Allthatdifferedwaswhethertheyfeltricherorpoorerthantheirpeers.Socialcomparisonsledtodifferencesinpoliticalbeliefs.

Thisstudyalsosuggeststhatcitizensingeneraldovoteintheireconomicinterestdespitebeingmostlyillinformedaboutwherethatinterestreallylies.Imaginethatpeoplewhofeelbetteroffthanaveragevotetocuttaxesandtocutwelfarebenefits,andthosewhofeelpoorerthanaveragevotetoraisetaxesandincreasewelfarebenefits.Sincefeelingsofrelativestatusare(modestly)linkedtoactualincomes,peoplewillberightabouttheirself-interestmoreoftenthantheyarewrong.Theresultisthatvotingpatternsthatseemrandomattheindividuallevelapproximatepatternsofself-interestedvoting,onaverage.Likeamurmurationofstarlings,millionsofpeoplelookingmyopicallyatwheretheystandcomparedwiththeirneighborscanproduceagroupthatseemstomovewithpurpose.

We’veseensofarthatpeopletendtovoteforpoliciesthattheyfeelareintheirself-interestwhethertheyactuallyareornot.Andwe’veseenthatwhatfeelstobeintheirself-interestdependsonhowtheycomparewithotherpeople.Asthehavesandthehave-notsgrowfurtherapart,wecanexpecttheeffectsofsocialcomparisonstoweighmoreandmoreheavily.Takentogether,theseobservationssuggestthattheriseininequalitythathasoccurredoverthepastfewdecadesmightbecontributingtoincreasinglyintensepartisanshipandpoliticalconflict.

ItishardtoescapetheconclusionthatpoliticsinAmericahasbecomemorepolarizedinrecentyears.Thedatasupportthatobservation.GeoscientistClioAndrisandhercolleaguesuseddataanalysistechniquesdevelopedformappinggeographicaldistancestomapthe“distances”betweenmembersofdifferentpartiesintheU.S.HouseofRepresentativesbasedonrollcallvotes.Whenevertworepresentativesvotethesameway,theyaredrawnclosertoeachother.Whentheyvotedifferently,theybecomefurtherapart.Theresultsarestriking.

Figure4.4showsthedistancesbetweeneachrepresentativefortheCongressesof1981,1991,2001,and2011.EachHousememberisrepresentedbyasingleblackdot(Republicans)orgraydot(Democrats).Inthe1980stherewasalotofoverlap.Manyofthegraydotsaredeepintoblackterritory,andmanyoftheblackdotsareingrayterritory.Theborderbetweenthetwoisthinandpermeable.Witheachdecade,however,theoverlaprecedes.By2011bothsideswerealmostperfectlysealedofffromeachother,andthemiddlegroundisano-man’s-land.Thesevisualizationsvividlyillustratethepolarizationthathassplitpoliticalelitesoverthepastfourdecades.Doesinequalitycontributetothisdivision?

80

Figure4.4.GraphicaldepictionofpolarizationovertimeintheU.S.Congress.AdaptedfromAdrisetal.,2015.

Toanswerthatquestion,wewentbacktothelaboratory.Werananexperimentinwhichparticipantswerepresentedwithseveralstocks.Thesubjectsreadabouteachcompanythatissuedthestock,itsprice-to-earningsratio,andhowthestockhadperformedoverthelastsixmonths.Theythenchosehowtoinvestsomeseedmoney,providedbytheexperimenters,inwhatevercombinationofstockstheywanted.Theyweretoldthattheperformanceofthesecuritieswouldbesimulatedbasedonrealstockmarketperformancefromtheprevioussixmonths,andthattheycouldkeepwhateverprofittheyearnedfromtheinvestments.Inreality,everyonemadea30percentprofitontheirinvestments,buthalfoftheparticipantsweretoldthattheydidbetterthan89percentofotherplayers,whiletheotherhalfweretoldthattheydidworsethan89percent.Inthisway,wecreateddifferencesinrelativestatus,withouttherebeinganydifferencesinactualmoneyearned.

Acrucialpartofthisexperimentwasthatitevolved.Thecurrentrules,wetoldparticipants,hadbeencreatedbythevotesofpastplayers.Onerulewasthathighearnerswouldbetaxed20percentoftheirearningstooffsetthelossesenduredbylowearners,whowouldbegivena20percentbonus.Inotherwords,thegameincludedaredistributionpolicy.Tofindoutwhetherrelativestatuswouldchangeopinionsaboutredistribution,wethenaskedtheparticipantstovoteonhowtherulesshouldchangeforfuturegenerationsofplayers.Asweexpectedbasedontheroleofrelativestatus,thehigher-statusgroupwantedtocuttaxesandreduceredistribution,andthelower-statusgroupwantedtoincreasetaxesandbenefitsforfuturegenerationsofplayers.

Wethenpresentedoursubjectswiththerecommendationsofanotherplayerwhoeitheragreedwiththemordisagreedwiththemabouttheredistributionissue,andaskedwhattheythoughtofthatplayer.Wastheotherplayercompetentorincompetent?Washeguidedbyprincipleorbiasedbyself-interest?Washeevenpayingattentiontotherulesofthegame?Washearationaldecisionmakeroranirrationalfool?

Asexpected,subjectsjudgedtheotherplayertobemoreincompetent,morebiased,andlessrationalwhenhedisagreedwiththesubjectthanwhenheagreed.Whenwelookedcloseratthedata,though,wenoticedaninterestingdetail:Theperceptionoftheotherplayerasbiasedandirrationalwasdrivenentirelybythegroupwhoweretoldthattheydidbetterthantheirpeers.Somethingaboutfeelingsuperiorinprofitsmadepeoplefeelsuperiortootherplayersabouttheiropinions,too.

81

Wehaveatendencytothinkthatpeoplewhoagreewithusarebrilliantandinsightful,andthatthosewhodisagreewithuscouldusealittlehelpinseeingrealityforwhatitis.AsGeorgeCarlinputit,“Haveyouevernoticedthatanybodydrivingslowerthanyouisanidiot,andanyonegoingfasterthanyouisamaniac?”Thispropensitytobelievethatweseetheworldaccurately,whileanyonewhohasadifferentopinionisbenighted,fuelsconflicts.AspsychologistLeeRosshasargued,ifIseetheworldasitisandyoudisagreewithme,thenIhaveonlyafewpossibleinterpretationsofyourbehavior:Youmightbeincompetent,youmightbeirrational,oryoumightbeevil.Whateverthecase,Ican’treasonwithyou.

Ifthesedifferencesinperceptionareespeciallypowerfulamongpeoplewhofeelrich,thenwefacesomeworryingimplicationsasinequalitycontinuestoincrease.Astheminorityatthetoppullfurtherandfurtherawayfromthemassofworking-classpeopleatthebottom,wecanexpecttheirpoliticalopinionstochange.Theywillmistaketheirself-interestsforgenuineprinciples,andtheywilllookwithdisdainonpeoplewhodisagreewiththem.Iftheyviewtheirpoliticalopponentsasincompetent,irrational,orimmoral,thentheywon’tbemotivatedtocompromise.

Todeterminewhetherfeelingrichreallyhasthepotentialtoinfluencethesebeliefs,weranafinalexperimentusingtheinvestmentgame.Asbefore,everyonepickedstocks,everyonemadethesameprofit,andonegroupthoughttheydidbetterthanotherswhiletheothergroupthoughttheydidworse.Theywereagainpresentedwiththeredistributionrecommendationsofanotherplayerwhoeitheragreedordisagreedwiththem.Thistime,though,inadditiontoaskingwhatsubjectsthoughtoftheotherplayer,wetoldthemthattheotherplayerwouldtakepartinvotingontherulesforthenextgenerationofplayers,andthathisvotewouldcountasmuchaseveryoneelse’s.Oneoftherulesthattheycouldchange,however,waswhethereveryvoteshouldbecountedequally.

Theresultsweresobering.Thesubjectswhothoughttheirearningswereinferiorwantedtoincreaseredistribution,asbefore.Buttheywantedeveryone’svotetocountequally,regardlessofwhethertheotherplayeragreedordisagreedwiththem.Thesubjectswhothoughttheyweresuperiorwantedtoreduceredistribution,andtheyalsovotedtorejectthevotesofthosewhodisagreedwiththem.Themoretheysawtheotherplayerasincompetentandirrational,thelesstheywantedhisvotetocount.Thisresearchwasthefirsttoshowthatfeelingsuperiorinstatusmagnifiesourfeelingthatweseerealityasitiswhileouropponentsaredeluded.Itsupportstheideathatasthetopandthebottomofthesocialladderdriftfurtherapart,ourpoliticswillbecomemoredivisive.Thatisexactlywhathashappenedoverthepastseveraldecades.

PoliticalscientistNolanMcCartyandhiscolleagueshavealsotracedpoliticaldivisionsoverthelastcenturyintheU.S.HouseofRepresentativesandSenate,formulatingameasureofpolarizationbasedonhowlawmakersvote,similartothe

82

datausedforAndris’sgraphs.ThepolarizationindexisatitshighestwhenallDemocratsvoteonewayandallRepublicansvotetheother.Usingthisindex,theycalculatedhowpolarizedAmericanpoliticshasbeenineveryCongresssince1947.Figure4.5showsthatpolarizationintheHouseofRepresentativesandtheGiniindexofinequalityhavefollowedstrikinglysimilartrajectories.ResultsfortheSenatearesimilar.Bothinequalityandpolarizationwererelativelylowthroughthe1950sand1960s.Theythenbeganrisingintandeminthemid-1970sandhaveremainedonpareversince.

Figure4.5.TheGiniindexofinequalityandpoliticalpolarizationintheHouseofRepresentativesroseinlockstepsincethe1970s.FromMcCarty,Poole,&Rosenthal(2016).

Visithttp://bit.ly/2odhSM8foralargerversionofthisimage.

Behavioralexperimentsandhistoricaldatabothpointtothesameconclusion:Asoureconomicworldsdiverge,so,too,doourpolitics.Itbecomesevermoredifficulttoseethoseontheothersideoftheaisleaswell-meaningindividualswhoshareourgoalsbutdifferinwhattheybelievearethebestmeanstoreachthem.Instead,theothersidebeginstolookmoreandmorelikeenemies.

LeslieRutledgeistheattorneygeneralofArkansas.Whenshewaselectedin2014,shehadtoworkharderthanexpectedforonevote—herown.RutledgeisaRepublicanwhosupportedArkansas’s2013voterIDlaw,whichrequiresvotersto

83

showagovernment-issuedIDatpollingplaces.DemocratsobjectedthatthelawwasathinlydisguisedefforttopreventpoorpeopleandminoritiesfromvotingbecausetheyarelesslikelytohavevalidIDs.Republicansarguedthatstrictstandardsattheballotboxwereimportanttopreventfraud.Arkansaslawalsorequirescitizenstoberegisteredinthestateandnowhereelseinordertovote.SowhentheDemocraticcountyclerk,LarryCrane,sawthatRutledgewasstillregisteredinWashington,D.C.,whereshehadpreviouslylived,hecanceledhervoterregistration.

RutledgeaccusedCraneofusing“Chicago-stylepolitics”to“disenfranchise”her.ArkansasDemocratsenjoyedafewdaysofschadenfreudeandwrotemanyblogpostsaboutthetruemeaningofirony.

WhatdoyouthinkweretheArkansasRepublicans’truemotivesinpassingthevoterIDlaw?WhatdoyouthinkCrane’srealmotiveswereindroppingRutledgefromthevoterrolls?Regardlessofwhoyoubelievewasrightorwronginthiscase,youarelikelytobeconfidentthatyouareassessingthesituationwithcleareyes,andthatanyonewhodisagreeswithyouiswillfullyignorantatbestandmalevolentatworst.PollsfromthePewResearchCenterhaverevealedthatthepercentageofordinaryAmericanswhohavea“veryunfavorable”opinionoftheopposingpoliticalpartyhassteadilygrownoverthelastthreedecadesasinequalityhasincreased.In2014,aboutathirdofrespondentsthoughtthatmembersoftheoppositepartywerenotjustmistaken,butwereathreattothenation’swell-being.Athirdofconservativesandaquarterofliberalssaidthattheywouldbeupsetifafamilymembermarriedsomeoneofthewrongparty.Thesetrendsaredangerous,becausewhenopponentsbecomeenemies,peoplecanjustifyalmostanythinginrespondingtothem.Afterall,howcanyouexpecttoreasonwithidiotsandmaniacs?

84