I thought that at least some Republicans would appreciate it when I first read that argument, but a few things occurred to me when I gave it longer thought. I can think of several reasons why Republicans wouldn't admit the validity of this argument. Consider the two major varieties of Republican:
1) Suppose a basic lower/middle-class grassroots Republican of indifferent education who has never considered their views, just absorbed them as they went along. While this person does have some reason to fear crime, their worldview and religion will automatically prevent them from even considering this argument because: a) They just don't have the mental toolkit. b) It would throw their entire worldview into question. Far easier to ignore the message or shoot the messenger than rebuild one's worldview without tools.
So grassroots Republicans will automatically fail to consider the argument.
2) Suppose an upper-class well-educated Republican with solid reasoning ability, not necessarily religious. This person is well aware of why they vote Republican. They hold their views because they wish to preserve their current wealth and power, and accumulate more. They also know that this is not in the best interests of their grassroots political majority. They have little reason to fear small crime, since they live in gated communities and work in secured buildings. They know that wealth is acquired by either persuasion or coercion. And they know the power of simple storylines conveyed through the mass media to sway their grassroots. This leads them to a few preliminary conclusions:
a) A steady supply of police and soldiers is needed to preserve and expand their wealth. b) A steady supply of simple, media-quality fear sources is needed to keep their grassroots support in the fold, thereby preserving their political power base.
So when this person applies their reasoning to the Freakonomics argument, they will conclude:
a) Drops in poverty are bad, since they reduce the base of people most likely to become soldiers and police. Not incidentally, they also reduce the base of people willing to produce wealth for low wages. b) Drops in financially low-level but fear-inducing crime are bad for the political power base, since they reduce the flow of fear-inducing news to the media.
Upper-class Republicans will privately accept the argument as true, but view its consequences as a direct threat to their wealth and power. Knowing that their political base is predisposed to ignore the argument anyway, they will simply opt to not draw attention to it. And they will continue to try to roll back Roe v. Wade, because doing so will give them their soldiers and crime back.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-01 08:29 pm (UTC)1) Suppose a basic lower/middle-class grassroots Republican of indifferent education who has never considered their views, just absorbed them as they went along. While this person does have some reason to fear crime, their worldview and religion will automatically prevent them from even considering this argument because:
a) They just don't have the mental toolkit.
b) It would throw their entire worldview into question. Far easier to ignore the message or shoot the messenger than rebuild one's worldview without tools.
So grassroots Republicans will automatically fail to consider the argument.
2) Suppose an upper-class well-educated Republican with solid reasoning ability, not necessarily religious. This person is well aware of why they vote Republican. They hold their views because they wish to preserve their current wealth and power, and accumulate more. They also know that this is not in the best interests of their grassroots political majority. They have little reason to fear small crime, since they live in gated communities and work in secured buildings. They know that wealth is acquired by either persuasion or coercion. And they know the power of simple storylines conveyed through the mass media to sway their grassroots. This leads them to a few preliminary conclusions:
a) A steady supply of police and soldiers is needed to preserve and expand their wealth.
b) A steady supply of simple, media-quality fear sources is needed to keep their grassroots support in the fold, thereby preserving their political power base.
So when this person applies their reasoning to the Freakonomics argument, they will conclude:
a) Drops in poverty are bad, since they reduce the base of people most likely to become soldiers and police. Not incidentally, they also reduce the base of people willing to produce wealth for low wages.
b) Drops in financially low-level but fear-inducing crime are bad for the political power base, since they reduce the flow of fear-inducing news to the media.
Upper-class Republicans will privately accept the argument as true, but view its consequences as a direct threat to their wealth and power. Knowing that their political base is predisposed to ignore the argument anyway, they will simply opt to not draw attention to it. And they will continue to try to roll back Roe v. Wade, because doing so will give them their soldiers and crime back.