(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Spinning Numbers... and Allegiances
01/06/2004

Leave it to our old friend Jody to bring me to a defense of Mark Shea.

I had swung by Mark's blog to see if he'd had cause to comment on the fact that Joseph D'Hippolito placed a column with the Jerusalem Post, and I came across an entry and a comment thereto that incited me, as an involuntary reflex, to write this post. Mark says of libertarians:

Nonetheless, libertarian*ism* (not "every last libertarian") is a philosophy best suited for people whose thinking is about one-generation deep. It tends not to hold up well over the long run and it most appealing (tellingly) to the sort of DINK (Double Income, No Kids) culture that inhabits the internet. So sociologically, I regard it as one of those obvious "boy's philosophies" that is sweet in the mouth but sour in the belly and can't last outside the hothouse of an economically prosperous young American middle-class before it has realized that life is essentially about self-sacrifice for others. Self-described libertarians who do live as though life is essentially about self-sacrifice for others are what I call "inconsistent libertarians".

In response to this obvious description, Jody commented:

That way you would have learned that most Libertarians are straight (90%) small business owners (23%), split fairly evenly between high school and college educated folks and those with advanced degrees (51/49%) were raised Christian (72%), are again split pretty evenly between those who make more than $50K (52%) and less than that (48%) are in monogamous (70%) long term relationships of 11 years or more (56%) with other libertarians (75%), and are politically active (57%) registered voters (90%). 82% of them are charitable toward libertarian causes, 44% toward humanitarian, 33% toward cultural and --zounds-- over a quarter (26%) of them donate to religious ones.

See, that would have shown that the real world basis for your argument that Libs are shallow, "Me-Centric" folks without much concern for their community or the future, really doesn't hold up under the least bit of -- wait for it--empiricism. (Ooo! There's that pesky word and concept again!)

Those numbers, which Jody has apparently selected and parsed with care, come from a Liberty magazine survey. Let me make passing note that Jody has, in the past, been quite willing to attack surveys as a data source, citing a personal bias (i.e., tilting toward the respondent's idealized version of himself). I haven't accepted that as a self-sufficient argument when used against me, so I won't use it as such here. Yes, surveys are problematic, but as Jody implies in his comment, some information is better than none. Figure out the bias and correct for it.

A magazine readership represents a self-selected pool — in this case, probably trending toward older, better-off libertarians who give thought to their being libertarians. So, while Jody picks up a point in that these respondents will probably skew toward the wealthy side, Mark picks up a stronger point in that the respondents would skew away from libertarians who are, in Jody's words, "shallow, 'Me-Centric' folks without much concern for their community or the future."

But accepting these numbers as accurate still leaves Jody spinning beyond the bounds of the laugh test; for example, how do the 23% of respondents who own small businesses amount to "most Libertarians"? The fact is that the survey's results, while they do so less than the corresponding survey in 1988 apparently did, strongly support Mark's characterization. I'm not going to take the time to research the truly relevant factor — the comparison to the general population — thoroughly, but we can make some generalizations on that count, with some quick census data.

80% of the surveyed libertarians are over 35, with 62% between 35 and 60; 90% of them are men. While 29% and 26%, respectively, claim to be religious and to have donated to religious causes, only 13% had attended a church within the week before the survey, with another 7% picked up extending the range out 30 days. While Jody is correct that 57% are politically active, 74% of them do not participate in any community groups.

With regard to income, Jody cuts the data in such a way as to come within 4% of balancing upper and lower incomes, but splitting the data at $50,000 isn't particularly applicable, considering that, in 1999, the median U.S. household income (including households with multiple workers) was $42,000. Continuing to pretend the numbers are comparable, the 20% of libertarians who make over $100,000 per year match up to 12.3% of the general public (which, remember, includes the libertarians). The 52% of libertarians over $50,000 match up with 42% of the population, while the 48% of libertarians under that line match up with 58% of the general public. And, once again, the libertarian data is for individual income, while the population data is for household income. Considering that 60% of libertarians are married and that 60-something percent of the general population is employed, this difference in the data probably makes a huge difference. (For some sense of the degree of difference, consider that the median income for non-family households was $25,700, while the per capita income was $21,500, both of which are less than half the median libertarian income.)

Of course, the most shocking data that Jody downplays in order to disprove Mark is that, in a nation that hovers around replacement level (one child for every adult), 49% of the surveyed libertarians had no children. Another 10% had only one child (remember that it takes two people to make a child). In a group that is married at about the same rate as the general population (around 60% of people), and is 80% above the age of 35, that goes a long way toward justifying Mark's DINK assertion right there!

ADDENDUM:
A quick note on Joseph's column, which started this whole inquiry. Although, as a writer, I'm happy for Joseph that he placed a piece with such a well-known publication, and although I continue to agree with much of what he says (but with a bit less vehemence), there's something that causes me discomfort when a Catholic writes in a major paper of the Jewish state that there is "pervasive, virulent anti-Israeli and anti-Western sentiment within the Church's upper echelons." Don't get me wrong; I'm a strong supporter of Israel, and I am aghast as anybody when members of the hierarchy take what I see as the European elite position. But saying so, without strongly offsetting the sentiment with other factors, in a Jerusalem newspaper just... well, it's disconcerting.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 04:24 PM EST

5 comments

Justin, why do you feel disconcerted? I'm not being rhetorical; I'm curious.

Joseph D'Hippolito @ 01/06/2004 09:09 PM EST

Hello Joseph,

I guess it's most easily expressed through a familial analogy. If you have major, contentious differences with your brother, it is legitimate for you to upbraid him in the strongest terms. Family bonds also don't require you to avoid saying anything critical of your brother in other company.

However, when you do so, you'll tend to leaven the criticism with qualifiers, justifications, or mitigating compliments. This is particularly true when the company in question is a group that is apt to be particularly sensitive to your brother's particular foible.

Well, applying this general principle more broadly opens up a great expanse of gray area. I guess, in the case of your essay, the discomfort derives from our apparently differing views of where that gray area is.

There's a goodwill and at least some degree of common understanding within a Catholic community, or even within a largely Christian nation. In contrast, addressing people in an explicitly Jewish state might merit a bit more by way of explanation of what is good within our Church, and perhaps some specific reasons that people who appear to be anti-Something are wrong to be so according to our doctrine.

Nothing major, just a bit.

Justin Katz @ 01/06/2004 11:37 PM EST

Justin, I understand and respect your viewpoint. On the other hand, what we're talking about isn't some mere "foible" but a distinct (and aggregious) moral flaw. And I addressed that flaw in the context of the behavior of people in the Vatican (which was the focus of the piece), not within the Church as a whole.

Too many people (Catholic and non-Catholic) equate the Vatican with the entire Church, just like too many people (American and non-American) equate Washington, D.C. with the whole U.S. It's an easy trap to fall into, especially considering that Rome and Washington are the foci of power. But the identity and personality of the Church (and of the nation) go far deeper than those two power centers (In fact, many Americans traditionally defined themselves by how *distant* they are from D.C.; that's why Will Rogers' humor was so popular in its day).

Joseph D'Hippolito @ 01/07/2004 12:34 PM EST

Joseph,

Thank you for the temper of your response; I know the publication of that piece must have been exciting, and I don't want to take away from that.

I think you've put your finger, perhaps inadvertently, on the factor that makes me uncomfortable when you write, "Too many people (Catholic and non-Catholic) equate the Vatican with the entire Church." Considering the audience of your column, that might have been a justified note to make therein, expanding to include individual members of or factions in the Vatican.

Justin Katz @ 01/07/2004 01:05 PM EST

Justin, thank *you* for linking to my piece and for the respectful way you phrase your questioning. BTW, I never interpreted anything you said as intending to take away from the excitement I felt about seeing the piece in the Jerusalem Post. If you or anybody else can't ask honest questions or express what's on your (or their) minds, what's the point?

Joseph D'Hippolito @ 01/07/2004 01:34 PM EST