{"id":40269,"date":"2024-05-17T17:41:23","date_gmt":"2024-05-17T22:41:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/?p=40269"},"modified":"2024-05-17T17:41:23","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T22:41:23","slug":"the-2024-senate-campaign-updates-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/2024\/05\/17\/the-2024-senate-campaign-updates-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The 2024 Senate Campaign: Updates"},"content":{"rendered":"

In our third installment<\/a> of this gripping drama … dammit, release your grip on me, sir!<\/p>\n

Reader Commentary<\/h2>\n

A reader writes concerning a resource I’m using:<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the diagram makes no sense. Left\/Liberal can certainly be considered approximately the opposite of Right\/Conservative for these purposes, at least to a first order. But Libertarian and Populist are not even on the same axis, much less opposites. If one insists upon squishing them onto the same axis, they’re much more in the same direction than opposites. Both smack of individualism over society and community.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For the forgetful random reader, here’s an example diagram from On The Issues<\/strong><\/em><\/a>, former Governor Hogan’s (R-MD) as it happens:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Libertarians are generally four-square behind individual freedoms. The Reason<\/strong><\/em><\/a> magazine byline is Free Minds and Free Markets,<\/em>\u00a0and Reason<\/strong><\/em> is arguably the leading libertarian rag. Their ideology is fairly easy to describe: minimal governmental regulation. For some uber<\/em>-libertarians, minimal<\/em> means zero<\/em>, and they explicitly claim the market will correct all, well, I suppose the applicable word would be inefficiencies<\/em>. I recall, from a mimeo newsletter that I inadvertently received, called The Utilitarian<\/strong><\/em>, the authors argued an attempted justification for even crime being correctable through the market and prisons being unnecessary, a remarkable delusion concerning the rationality, or lack thereof, of mankind.<\/p>\n

Populism, on the other hand, is less of an ideology. From Wikipedia<\/strong><\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n

Populism<\/b>\u00a0is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of “the people” and often\u00a0juxtapose<\/a>\u00a0this group with “the elite<\/a>“. It is frequently associated with\u00a0anti-establishment<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0anti-political<\/a>\u00a0sentiment.\u00a0The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties and movements since that time, often as a pejorative. Within\u00a0political science<\/a>\u00a0and other\u00a0social sciences<\/a>, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It does continue …<\/p>\n

A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the\u00a0ideational<\/a>\u00a0approach: this defines populism as an\u00a0ideology<\/a>\u00a0that presents “the people” as a morally good force and contrasts them against “the elite”, who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But I think populism is less an ideology than a meta-ideology<\/em>, a set of rules to attain political success. That is, populists adapt to conditions on the ground. If the people want to march in a particular direction, the populist will scramble to get in front of the mob and be the leader. Ideologically, they can be flexible.<\/p>\n

This is not necessarily a bad thing, although I think regarding populists with greater suspicion is definitely warranted; too often they are self-interested power-mongers and not selfless defenders of the public weal.<\/p>\n

So far as the diagram goes, I see that axis as an indication of ideological rigidity. Whether it’s useful or not is another question; I suspect On The Issues<\/strong><\/em> will have substantial arguments for their presentation. But this is how I see it at the moment.<\/p>\n

More Resource News<\/h2>\n

In the previous installment<\/a> of this series I described the Siena College Poll<\/strong><\/em> as respected<\/em>. Despite achieving the highest ranking in FiveThirtyEight’s<\/strong><\/em> evaluation of political pollsters<\/a>, former Rep Joe Scarborough (R-FL), now an independent, and co-host of cable TV show Morning Joe<\/strong><\/em>, disagrees, along with Gary Sargent of WaPo<\/strong><\/em>, and others. They believe Siena<\/strong><\/em> and the Times<\/strong><\/em> are manipulating the data to stir up the political world and increase Times<\/strong><\/em> revenues, and they point at polling experts describing anomalies and poor methodology at Siena<\/strong><\/em>. Munchausen on Daily Kos<\/strong><\/em> presents<\/a> a wrap up and summary.<\/p>\n

I’m no polling expert. Maybe the best in the business is no longer the best in the business. Perhaps money has corrupted them.<\/p>\n

Or maybe the cited pundits are suffering from denial of their confirmation bias<\/a>. That is, liberal expectations that President Biden’s successful Administration should translate to public accolades are disappointed, and someone has to be blamed, so Siena<\/strong><\/em> takes the hit.<\/p>\n

Look for yourself<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Oh, And Then There’s That Other News<\/h2>\n