Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters "Simply Ignorant?" A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in "Homer Gets a Tax Cut"

Lupia, Arthur and Levine, Adam S. and Menning, Jesse O. and Sin, Gisela (2005): Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters "Simply Ignorant?" A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in "Homer Gets a Tax Cut". Forthcoming in: Perpsectives on Politics , Vol. 5,

Abstract

In a recent edition of Perspectives on Politics, Larry Bartels examines the high levels of support for tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001. In so doing, he characterizes the opinions of “ordinary people” as lacking “a moral basis” and as being based on “simple-minded and sometimes misguided considerations of self interest.” He concludes that “the strong plurality support for Bush’s tax cut...is entirely attributable to simple ignorance.”

Our analysis of the same data reveals different results. We show that for a large and politically relevant class of respondents – people who describe themselves as “conservative” or “Republican” – rising information levels increase support for the tax cuts. Indeed, using Bartels’ measure of political information, we show that the Republican respondents rated “most informed” supported the tax cuts at extraordinarily high levels (over 96%). For these citizens, Bartels’ claim that “better-informed respondents were much more likely to express negative views about the 2001 tax cut” is simply untrue.

We then show that Bartels’ results depend on a very strong assumption about how information affects public opinion. He restricts all respondents -- whether liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat – to respond to increasing information levels in identical ways. In other words, he assumes that if more information about the tax cut makes liberals less likely to support it, then conservatives must follow suit. This assumption is very presumptive about the policy trade-offs that different people should make. Our analysis, by contrast, allows people of different partisan or ideological identities to react to higher information levels in varying ways. This flexibility has many benefits, one of which is a direct test of Bartels’ restrictive assumption. We demonstrate that the assumption is untrue. Examined several ways, our findings suggest that much of the support for the tax cut was attributable to something other than “simple ignorance.”

Bartels’ approach is based on a very strong presumption about how citizens should think and what they should think about. We advocate a different approach, one that takes questions of public policy seriously while respecting ideological and partisan differences in opinion and interest. Indeed, citizens have reasons for the opinions and interests they have. We may or may not agree with them. However, we, as social scientists, can contribute more by offering reliable explanations of these reasons than we can by judging them prematurely. By turning our attention to explaining differences of opinion, we can help to forge a stronger and more credible foundation for progress in meeting critical social needs.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: tax cut; President Bush; Republicans; conservatives; information; competence; public policy
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D80 - General; H - Public Economics > H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue > H23 - Externalities ; Redistributive Effects ; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

References

Althaus, Scott L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Andreasen, Alan R. 1995. Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development, and the Environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bartels, Larry M. 2005. “Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public policy in the American Mind.” Perspectives on Politics 3: 15-32.

Brady, Henry E., and Paul M. Sniderman. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79: 1061-78.

Chubb, John E., Michael G. Hagen, and Paul M. Sniderman. 1991. “Ideological Reasoning.” In Paul M. Sniderman, Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock (eds.) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1993. “Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 1179-1206.

Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Iyengar, Shanto. 1986. “Whither Political Information.” Report to the Board of Overseers and Presented at the NES Pilot Study Conference. Ann Arbor, MI.

Iyengar, Shanto. 1990. “Shortcuts to Political Knowledge: The Role of Selective Attention and Accessibility.” In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski (eds.), Information and Democratic Processes, pp. 160-185. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Hacker, Jacob S., and Paul Pierson 2005. “Abandoning the Middle: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Limits of Democratic Control.” Perspectives on Politics 3: 33-53.

Krupnikov, Yanna, Adam Seth Levine, Markus Prior, and Arthur Lupia. 2006. “Public Ignorance and Estate Tax Repeal: The Effect of Partisan Differences and Survey Incentives.” Forthcoming, National Tax Journal 59 (September).

Lupia, Arthur. 2005. “Questioning Our Competence: Improving the Relevance of Political Knowledge Measures.” Manuscript delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.

Lupia, Arthur. 2006. “How Elitism Undermines the Study of Voter Competence.” Forthcoming, Critical Review 18.

Mondak, Jeffery. 1999. “Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge.” Political Analysis 8: 57-82.

Mondak, Jeffery and Belinda Creel Davis. 2001. “Asked and Answered: Knowledge Levels When We Will Not Take ‘Don't Know’ for an Answer.” Political Behavior 23:199-224.

Shapiro, Walter. 2005. “What’s the Matter with Central Park West?” The Atlantic Monthly. Available at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200503/shapiro. Printed in the March edition.