While the Republicans are clearly enjoying the benefits of the hack gap, Christopher Shea suggests in the Boston Globe that the Democrats’ ‘professoriate gap’ doesn’t count for much. According to Shea, (1) the recent poll of academic economists in the Economist where 70% of economists judged Bush’s fiscal policy to be bad, or very bad, (2) the letter signed by Harvard Business School professors suggesting that Bush flunked his tax policy, and (3) the letter from over 700 foreign policy scholars denouncing the Iraq adventure are so much hot air.
Shea’s article is lazy, one-sided, and intellectually sloppy. It tries to squash two, quite different arguments into an incoherent whole. The first is undeniably true - that academics don’t have much power to influence elections. The second is false - that this means that polls or petitions signed by academics are politically irrelevant. Academic economists and international relations scholars have real expertise in their areas of interest - that’s why they’re frequently tapped by both Democratic and Republican administrations for middle-to-senior policy positions. They’re not just living in ivory towers. Furthermore, both economics and international relations departments are ideologically and intellectually diverse - it’s notoriously hard to get them to agree on anything. When international relations scholars from both left and right unite to denounce a major foreign policy initiative, it’s a pretty good signal that there’s something horribly wrong with the policy in question. Likewise, when the great majority of economists are convinced that Bush’s fiscal policy is bad-to-disastrous, it tells us something important about how truly awful Bush’s fiscal policy is.
Update: Chris Shea responds, defending the article in comments.
“academics don’t have much power to influence elections” implies that “polls or petitions signed by academics are politically irrelevant” in determining the outcome of an election nay? Or how else could their opinions be relevant”?
Academics are “tapped by both Democratic and Republican administrations for middle-to-senior policy positions” implies that if you have a Republican admin, the residue is probably a biased sample?
Henry, I think your second paragraph misreads the article. Those two arguments are conflated only by Elliott Cohen in the last two paragraphs.
Christopher Shea’s own argument seems to be, “Some academics support Kerry, but I can find some who support Bush (look! Milton Friedman! This year’s Nobel Prizewinner, who also thinks that it’s easy to make $200K a year! Some guy who thinks tax increases are “semi-socialist”!) And an AEI employee says that professors are all politically correct eggheads. So, duh….”
So, lazy and intellectually sloppy, yes; important news from this unlikely consensus, yes; but I don’t think Shea even manages to put two arguments together into an incoherent whole.
Academics are “tapped by both Democratic and Republican administrations for middle-to-senior policy positions” implies that if you have a Republican admin, the residue is probably a biased sample?
As someone who has lived in the Washington area for most of my life, I think it’s extremely doubtful that the number of academics who receive political appointments is large enough to produce a significant shift in the collective opinion of the remainder.
(There are quite a few economists and foreign relations experts who are employed by the government, certainly, but a large majority are career employees, and do not come and go with different administrations.)
True, but if there is some degree of hysteris, then the fact that 16 out of the last 24 years have seen Republican administrations might explain some sorting whereby republican are less likely to be employed in academia?
True, but if there is some degree of hysteris, then the fact that 16 out of the last 24 years have seen Republican administrations might explain some sorting whereby republican are less likely to be employed in academia?
>>
it’s a pretty good signal that there’s something horribly wrong with the policy in question. Likewise, when the great majority of economists are convinced that Bush’s fiscal policy is bad-to-disastrous, it tells us something
>>
Signal…TO WHOM?
“tells us” …WHO IS US?
Surely the point is that the average voter is drawing no conclusion even when there’s an academic consensus that a policy is problematic. Even in 2000, non-hack academics could see problems with Bush’s policy proposals. Any evidence it hurt him?
Okay, I made a mistake by landing so heavily at the end on the quotes from Cohen and Muravchik; that suggested that I was siding with their views. And I had to do it over I’d give more space to the foreign-policy petition.
But in a short piece summarizing some of the academic endorsements floating around—in which almost all the examples are pro-Kerry—should I really have simply omitted the pro-Bush side, because that side is (supposedly) only made up of predictable hacks?
For good or bad—very bad, Matt Weiner thinks—I wasn’t trying to mount an argument in that column, just trying to give a sense of where people were lining up. To have suggested that all “experts” are pro-Kerry would have been disingenuous, it seems to me.
As noted above, the article read like a one-sided slam - the problem I had wasn’t that it gave some room to anti-Kerry experts as that it gave the strong impression that the experts’ opinions were irrelevant by closing as it did with the Cohen and Muravchik quotes (Cohen, by the way, is almost certainly wrong when he implies that Bush could gather together a substantial group of foreign policy academics to defend his approach). That said, I’m happy to accept your contention that you didn’t deliberately intend the article to read that way.
Any group (including academics) that wants to influece an election can do so. It only requires money, as the Swift Boat group, among others, have demonstrated. When academics show that they expect to be influential simply by opening their mouths, people see them as elitist and irrelevant.
I should say that, though I think it is bad that Shea’s article strives for balance, I don’t think it’s especially his fault. What’s going on is endemic in American journalism: an objectivity fetish, in which one tries to report two sides of a story without mentioning that one side is either wrong on the facts or more predictably hackish than another. That’s not unique to Shea in the slightest—I should probably have made that clear in the original post. (And I don’t have any particular solution and wouldn’t want Shea’s job, so I probably should just have kept my gob shut.)
And I agree with Henry about the ending—it looked one-sided, but I can see how that wouldn’t have been deliberate.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review