Over at Kevin Drum's place, there's a discussion going on about Ross Douthat's contention:
If liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect “blue” regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar “red” regions.
But that isn’t what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on. “Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.
This sparked some debate as you might expect, including the observation that Douthat is A) cherry picking his data to support his desired conclusion, and B) is full of B.S. Kevin Drum looks at the same studies and reaches a slightly different take on what is shown:
...Douthat is right that there's not a sharp red-blue divide between states with the highest and lowest teen pregancy rates. Still, the top ten is pretty heavily dominated by red states and the bottom ten is pretty heavily dominated by blue states. I think it's probably unwise to pretend that there are simple lessons to be derived from this, but at the same time it's deceptive to pretend that the divide isn't there. There really is a difference, and it's likely that social values play a role in it.
But there's a bigger problem here. You can take any single issue, go over a bunch of studies about it, and try to draw conclusions - but if you're not looking at the bigger picture, your conclusions may be pointless. You can address the problem of your house being uncomfortably warm by cranking up the air conditioning - but if it's too warm because climate is changing around the world, your understanding of the problem and the solution based on it is only going to be of limited effectiveness.
We have competing ideologies that all try to address our problems in as broad a manner as possible. They have the advantage of giving easy - if different - answers to a broad range of problems. But whether they are effective answers is another matter. Looking at things as Red versus Blue is not necessarily useful, when the assumptions underlying those different interpretations may not really drill down to what's actually going on.
More below the Orange Omnilepticon
Let's consider another issue. If I recall correctly, divorce rates are higher in the so-called bible-belt/red states than in the blue states. So you could try to make an argument that states where people are obsessed with sex-within-marriage, one-man-one-woman-only states do worse at living up to that ideal. You could spend a lot of time arguing over what the difference is between liberal and conservative policies that seems to affect marriage.
But, here's the rub. We may all be barking up the wrong tree if we try to frame this simply as a red-blue divide, and there's a different issue driving this difference at a deeper level: inequality.
It's Not Just Red Versus Blue; It's the Inequality
In "The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, they make the case that - in developed countries - the greater the difference between those at the top and those at the bottom, the worse an entire range of problems get for everyone in that country. Teen pregnancy, infant mortality, social mobility, health, crime, drug use, mental illness, education failure... They compare developed countries around the world against a whole range of quality of life measures: where the gap is smaller, everyone does better; where it's greater, everyone does worse.
Simply growing the economy as the answer to problems runs into the law of diminishing returns. Compare two countries in the developed category, posit one has more wealth in absolute terms but greater inequality than the other - and it's the other country that seems to be doing better for its citizens.
Where it gets interesting, if you want to argue that comparing Japan and Sweden with the U.S. isn't really valid because of all the cultural differences for example, is that you can also look at this hypothesis by comparing the 50 states within America and the same correlation shows up. That's something Douthat and Drum should be looking at.
Why Inequality Matters? What's the Big Deal?
While correlation does not necessarily equal causation, Wilkinson and Pickett take a look at why inequality seems to be a critical factor in influencing human behavior and the outcomes that result. It turns out there are some basic biological mechanisms that tie in with how people respond to inequality. All of us are driven to a degree by our perceptions of status within a group; the ways people inherently respond to stress from inequality influences a whole range of responses, including health and decision making. Further, there are effects at the biological level that are felt across generations.
As a BBC review of their work describes it:
The reason inequality matters, according to the book, is because of "psycho-social" factors - like status anxiety.
"What social epidemiologists have learned over the past few decades is how important feelings are for health," explains Professor Pickett.
The book draws on studies that show that primates, like monkeys or chimpanzees, react at a biological level when they are placed in socially stressful situations - such as bringing a dominant male down in the social hierarchy.
Humans, too, seem to show similar reactions to social stress in some cases. This anxiety can affect our nervous and endocrine systems.
This is a new and still controversial area of science. A recent review said that more research is needed.
Still, The Spirit Level's argument has caused ripples because it says the size of the gap between rich and poor is what matters - so helping the poorest will not be enough on its own.
The Weight of Evidence
Wilkinson and Picket are not amateurs who've come up with an exciting idea and run with it; they're academics who have been studying this for decades and their book is based on hundreds of studies and thousands of man-hours of research across a range of disciplines. The list of citations at the back of the book is impressive to say the least. A review at the Guardian UK gives some idea of how much work has gone into this book.
Wilkinson, a public health researcher of 30 years' standing, has written numerous books and articles on the physical and mental effects of social differentiation. He and Pickett have compiled information from around 200 different sets of data, using reputable sources such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the US Census, to form a bank of evidence against inequality that is impossible to deny.
They use the information to create a series of scatter-graphs whose patterns look nearly identical, yet which document the prevalence of a vast range of social ills. On almost every index of quality of life, or wellness, or deprivation, there is a gradient showing a strong correlation between a country's level of economic inequality and its social outcomes. Almost always, Japan and the Scandinavian countries are at the favourable "low" end, and almost always, the UK, the US and Portugal are at the unfavourable "high" end, with Canada, Australasia and continental European countries in between.
Why This Matters to Liberals and Progressives in Particular
There are huge implications to be derived from their research. We spend a lot of time, energy, money, and political wrangling over the most effective ways to deal with things like teen pregnancy, drug abuse, social mobility, health,crime, education... We treat them all in isolation, with debatable results. If Wilkinson and Pickett are on to something, the problem is we've been treating symptoms, not the disease. But beyond that, if we start addressing the problem of inequality, we should start seeing improvement in a whole range of seemingly intractable problems, getting a lot bigger bang for the buck (so to speak.) We could make life better for everyone - and spend less doing it!
Which is why liberals and progressives really need to take a look at what Wilkinson and Picket have to say. The progressive mind set looks at problems facing society, and approaches them with the idea of trying to make things better for everyone (When each of us does well, ALL of us do well). Investing in groups (political parties, clubs, government) is about the idea that what an individual may give up to the group is more than balanced by the freedom they gain from the power of the group to do what they could not do by themselves.
Conservatives are more of the YOYO persuasion (You're On Your Own). As long as a single individual does well, they take that as proof as anyone else could also do well - if only they worked harder, worshipped the right God, etc. etc.) The fact that in practice it means they're free to not give a damn about anyone else is just coincidence, of course. Freedom means being left alone to do what they want; inequality is a feature, not a bug in their worldview.
Which is why conservatives have an advantage: their policies have been driving inequality around the globe. In terms of success for individuals, they've succeeded wildly for the handful at the top. Since they don't really see the problems this creates for everyone else as being their concern, they want more of the same. And that's bad news for progressives.
All of the problems progressives are concerned about and think are the responsibility of society to deal with are made more difficult to solve by the policies conservatives push - and talking about inequality makes them react at freakout levels. (That's why the huge pushback against Occupy movements by the right wing everywhere.) Yet if we don't tackle inequality, all the problems we face as a society, as a country, as a species driven by inequality are that much harder to deal with, and our solutions that much less effective. We have an uphill battle, and every concession made to conservatives makes that hill steeper. Inclusion only works as a strategy when the people being included are willing to buy into the common goal.
Keeping the Conversation Going
The Spirit Level made a splash when it first appeared, but seems to have been quickly pushed to the side. (One conservative think tank did commission a hack job book to 'debunk' it, but real discussion has largely not taken place, at least in America.) It's been brought up periodically here at Daily Kos (as here in 2010), but it really needs to get exposed to more people to spark discussion. (Where's Oprah when you really need her?) It lacks the ridiculous sex scenes of "Atlas Shrugged" and the angsty drama, but that doesn't mean it can't stir passions.
In terms of timing and message, this book seems tailor-made for the Occupy movement. The press has been clamoring for sound bites to reduce the message of OWS to a dismissible minimum; there's plenty of material in The Spirit Level backed up by studies and hard facts that can't be easily dismissed. It provides a framework to explain where things are going well - AND just as important - explain why some ideas just are not going to work.
Further, despite the knee-jerk right wing hysteria about the ideas in the book, it's really non-partisan, in the sense that "here's the data, here's what it shows, here are the conclusions based on those facts." It's reality-based, not ideology based. There are plenty of people within the Democratic Party who will be made very uncomfortable by the findings in the book, not just Republicans.
It would behoove everyone involved with the Occupy movement to get a copy of the Spirit Level and take a look.
Just the wealth of data showing why conservative policies within the U.S. have made life worse for people on a state by state basis should be eye-opening. The austerity policies being imposed in Europe are going to supply tons of data showing what happens when inequality is ramped up. Hard numbers, studies from around the world - and yet we seem to be perversely ignoring a wealth of possible answers to our problems.
That being said, it should be noted that Inequality isn't the sole explanation for what ails us. Religious strife, natural disasters, economic disruptions, even removing lead from gasoline has effects that can't be ignored. But, to ignore what Wilkinson and Pickett seem to have found without examination would appear to be criminally irresponsible. Stupid, even.
The Answers Are Out There
The Spirit Level has been published with a variety of subtitles, but finding a copy shouldn't be hard. There is a web site containing lots of material from the work of Wilkinson and Pickett available for free at:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
Anyone who wants to have an informed debate about this really needs to look at it.
It's not like a lot of really bright people haven't taken a good hard look at these problems and done solid research and found answers. It's past time for the rest of us, including our policy makers and politicians, to take a look at what they've found and try actually using that painfully gained knowledge. Among other things, it gives us means to look at what actually matters in addressing these problems, so we have a better idea what works - and it frames them more accurately so we don't expect easy answers to solve them overnight.
Or, we can keep on having the same old debates with the same tired arguments along ideological lines for however long it takes for these problems to overwhelm us.
Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM PT: UPDATE: For those just seeing this, you can find a shortcut to all of the things Wilkinson and Pickett have evidence is affected by inequality at:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/...
In order: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust & community life, violence, teenage births, child well-being, equality not growth, rich and poor countries, equality and global warming. The items on that list and the evidence backing up their findings is impressive, to say the least. That more people haven't heard of this (see poll results) is a shame. That it's not informing our political debates is criminal.