Articles by David Kirby
David is currently Senior Director of Academic Programs at the Institute for Humane Studies, where he manages programs for aspiring academics in the humane and social sciences. He is also an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute, where he researches libertarian voting preferences. Before joining IHS, David was executive director of America’s Future Foundation. Under David’s leadership, AFF became the premier organization for young conservative and libertarian leaders and expanded to include chapters in five states.
David’s writing has appeared in the National Review Online, Tech Central Station, Human Events, and other publications. His research has been cited in the New York Times, Economist, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, National Review, and National Journal. In his misspent youth, David interned for Senator Ted Kennedy.
David holds an MPP from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. A college debater, he also has a BA in rhetoric from Bates College. David is a native of Fairfax, VA. In his spare time, he practices Krav Maga, a mixed martial art.
Tea Parties and future of politics
Don’t miss this AEI panel next Wednesday, June 9 at 2:00 about what the Tea Parties mean for the future of politics with Ross Douthat, Kristen Soltis, and Dave Weigel. Fun fact: Cheryl Miller, the organizer of this event, says
According to my highly unscientific count, they have the youngest average age (28!) of any AEI panel. If we include the moderator, Jonah Goldberg, we’re still at a record-making 31.
Data-mining the novel
Interesting report at the Chronicle about how Google Books is beginning to allow literature scholars to use data-mining techniques on novels:
New insights can be gleaned by shining a spotlight into the “cellars of culture” beneath the small portion of works that are typically studied, [Franco Moretti, a Stanford professor of English and comparative literature] believes. He has pointed out that the 19-century British heyday of Dickens and Austen, for example, saw the publication of perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 novels—the huge majority of which are never studied. The problem with this “great unread” is that no human can sift through it all. “It just puts out of work most of the tools that we have developed in, what, 150 years of literary theory and criticism,” Mr. Moretti says. “We have to replace them with something else.” Something else, to him, means methods from linguistics and statistical analysis. His Stanford team takes the Hardys and the Austens, the Thackerays and the Trollopes, and tosses their masterpieces into a database that contains hundreds of lesser novels. Then they cast giant digital nets into that megapot of words, trawling around like intelligence agents hunting for patterns in the chatter of terrorists.
Unsurprisingly, this has sparked a methodological debate in the field:
Novels are deeply specific, [Katie Trumpener, a professor of comparative literature and English at Yale University] argues, and the field has traditionally valued brilliant interpreters who create complex arguments about how that specificity works. When you treat novels as statistics, she says, the results can be misleading, because the reality of what you might include as a novel or what constitutes a genre is more slippery than a crude numerical picture can portray.
Worth a read.
Academic Entreprenuership
As many scholars have observed, the market for tenure-track jobs is declining, relative to contingent faculty positions such as lecturers or instructors. And this trend is not likely to change. Add to this the retirement of the baby boom professors, cost constraints for state higher education budgets, the eroded value of endowments, declining philanthropic support, and new business models by higher education companies –you have a recipe for tumultuous marketplace for faculty jobs over the next decade.
So in this environment, what can grad students and faculty in the early stages of their careers do to pursue a successful career in academia?
One idea emerging is “academic entrepreneurship”–the idea of taking your career into your own hands and discovering your own comparative advantage in this changing marketplace. In a great piece at Inside Higher Ed, “The Entrepreneurial Grad Student,” Christine Kelly offers three things you can do to be entrepreneurial: brand yourself, seek opportunities, and be willing to adapt.
Apologies for the cross-promotion. But for faculty and grad student readers who are interested discussing and exploring this topic, I am moderating a Academic Entrepreneurship group at Kosmos, the online community of classical-liberal scholars. (Kosmos is in beta, so please excuse some part of the website still under construction.)
Can Twitter approximate polls?
At Pollster, Alex Lundry reviews a new study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon that attempts to use Twitter to approximate public opinion polls. For instance, the researchers used the prevalence of tweets like “Obama’s awesome” and “Obama sucks” to measure President Obama’s job approval rating, a common measure by pollsters. Implication:
This study also highlights a debate the polling community must have sooner or later: can the shortcomings of dirty data be overcome by a mix of sheer volume, sound data preparation/manipulation and savvy analysis? In this new era of IVR, online panels, social media and big data, the answer is increasingly pointing to yes – especially when you consider the advantages of speed, cost and access that these non-traditional data collection methods enjoy.
Young people’s attitudes towards the word “libertarian”
Many bloggers commented on last week’s Pew survey that asked whether respondents had positive or negative feelings towards the word “libertarian.” I was curious how this would break by age, and Pew kindly provided us the crosstabs, below:
Two observations. One, young people have more positive feelings towards the word “libertarian” than older Americans and fewer don’t know the word. That’s good news for libertarian brand. But two, young people seem to have more positive feelings about most words, including “progressive,” “civil liberties,” and “family values.” I wonder if young people really know what any of these words mean, or whether this reflects a certain sunny generational optimism? I’d be interested in your thoughts in the comments.
Washington Post Copies Politico?
In the fast-paced and ever-changing media landscape, the surest strategy for a struggling news oraganization is to… copy your competitors! After last week’s announcement that Newsweek magazine is for sale because it could no long earn a profit, this week the Washington Post Co. launches a new new media project called PostPolitics that looks awefuly similar to… Politico! From a marketing email, PostPolitics is the:
“the ultimate destination for breaking political news, in-depth original reporting and analysis, from the trusted leader in political coverage.”
Now, what’s the difference between this and WashingtonPost.com?
Two thoughts on Peterson Fiscal Summit
Today, I attended the Peterson Foundation’s star/wonk-studded Fiscal Summit. Speakers included Pres. Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Peter Orzag, Paul Ryan and more. Great coverage at the Fiscal Times. Two thoughts.
First, Paul Ryan continues to impress and he commanded an out-sized influence on the days events. Ryan’s observation that the fiscal crisis is the most “predictable economic crisis” in history, was the quote and idea that kicked off the proceedings. Though outnumbered, Ryan managed to draw the key ideological distinctions on his panel about the roll and purpose of government. And during the luncheon address, Peter Orzag continued to call attention to Ryan’s ideas. If Ryan can command this much attention–in a room full of politicos that includes President Clinton!–just imagine how much attention other Republicans could get if they too started talking as candidly and forthrightly about ideas.
Second, I was struck about how elliptical the whole panel on health care reform sounded. Dr. Elliot Fischer at Dartmouth described how various new business models have innovated to reduce costs and increase quality care. And all the other panelists agreed, saying yeah, we should reward that by giving a bonus payment, or tinkering with the Medicare reimbursement formula, or empowering the government “innovation center” to do more of this. But isn’t this missing the surprising thing about these examples? Because in every other sector, you don’t need a politician to pass a bill or tweak a payment formula to reward such innovation. If it’s good for consumers, you make a profit and grow on your own. Why isn’t this true for health care sector? No one seemed to see this as odd. But it’s more obvious why if you read David Goldhill’s piece in The Atlantic. And, the analysis points towards a much different path for reform.
Overall, an impressive day of speakers and I hope an encouraging sign of momentum for the Commission.
The flip side of tolerance
As I had noted before, TargetPoint and Politico had commissioned a poll of attendees to a DC Tea Party rally, including questions to separate libertarians from conservatives. Alex Lundry has been blogging new bits of analysis the last week. I found this observation particularly interesting:
However, while [Ron] Paul does not perform well among traditional values promoters, Palin does perform decently among the more libertarian group, indicating some potential crossover appeal between the two camps of the Tea Party. Beyond that, Gingrich and Romney perform adequately enough in both groups that they too have potential to be a bridge between the libertarian and socially conservative sects of the Tea Party.
So it seems libertarians can live with conservative politicians, while conservatives have a harder time living with libertarian politicians. Is this the flip side of the social tolerance that differentiates libertarians from conservatives? Perhaps. And I wonder if this helps explain why the historical alliance between libertarians and conservatives has often favored conservative politicians.
David Brooks misreads the “center”
David Brooks laments the rise of the “libertarian/Goldwater-esque” streak of the Republican Party and the re-emergence of what he describes as the “government war,” the “stale” debate over “big government-versus-small government.”
To each his own, I guess.
But what I find interesting is Brooks’ historical narrative of where this libertarian streak comes from. The story begins with Obama. By his reading, there was a glimmer of hope for centrists like Brooks, with Obama and his band of “brilliant pragmatists.” But the financial crisis and Obama’s attempt to push too many big-projects too fast, soured the countries’ centrist mood. And now, “politics is more polarized than ever.”
I think this story misses the mark on two counts. First, the story doesn’t start in the right place. As David Boaz and I have shown, this libertarian streak began with Bush. As early as 2004, polls detected the dissatisfaction of small-government libertarians towards the Bush administration’s more big-government policies. This libertarian-inspired anger has been growing and gathering since. Libertarians have led the way.
Second, I don’t think calling this sort of politics “polarized” accurately captures it. Brooks writes, “The Democrats have become the government party and the Republicans are the small government party.” True, this libertarian streak is mad at Obama and the Democrats. But it’s not really a polarized, red-team, blue-team thing. Polls show that these libertarian-inspired voters are just as mad at Republicans. If Republicans are indeed the small government party, they certainly haven’t sold many voters.
Perhaps in recent history, libertarians occupy the “center” of American politics–though certainly drawn on a different map than Brooks imagines.
Tea Party split 43% conservative to 42% libertarian
Fascinating new poll out today from Politico & TargetPoint. For the first time, researchers have measured the two camps of the Tea Party ideologically, conservative versus libertarian. Interestingly, Tea Party supporters are split down the middle:
Indeed, combining the responses to some of these questions is a revealing ideological exercise: 43% of attendees said government is doing too much AND that government should promote traditional values, a distinctly conservative view; 42% said government is doing too much AND that government should NOT promote any particular set of values, an ideological view used by the Cato Institute as an indicator of libertarianism (currently 23% of all Americans fit into this category).
Also at Politco today, Boaz and I explore where these libertarians come from. We see the origins of this shift as early as the Obama election, when libertarians swung away from Obama and the Democrats after supporting them in greater percentages in 2004 and 2006. This 2008 swing seems to be an early indicator of the libertarian-inspired anger of the Tea Party that Alex Lundry and his colleagues at TargetPoint are finding today.
UPDATE: Dave Weigel points out some potential biases in the TargetPoint / Politico poll, since they surveyed only DC Tea Party attendees. Nonetheless, this is the first data point on ideological breakdown of Tea Party and an important finding for other pollsters and researchers to verify nationally.
Libertarian sentiment has finally gone mainstream
Or so says Chris Stirewalt, political editor of the Washington Examiner:
Three years ago, the Republican establishment piled scorn on the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul. Today, he is in a statistical tie with President Obama in 2012 polling… Paul will not likely be the next president… But there’s no doubt that hating the government and the powerful interests that pull Washington’s strings has gone from the radical precincts of the Right and Left to the mainstream.
Do Tea Partiers Support BIG Government?
WSJ reports on a Bloomberg poll released today that shows Tea Party activists support big government too:
about half of Tea Party sympathizers surveyed said the federal government should do more to rein in executive bonuses in the financial industry. At the time same time, more than 80% said expansion of the government’s role in the economy is a high threat.
With a movement as loose and fluid as the Tea Parties, some incoherence is to be expected. But I’m suspicious. Bloomberg says that 26% of the American public are Tea Partiers. Really? One quarter of America? That seems like an awfully large group. I’d like to see what the exact question text Bloomberg used to identify Tea Party members, as I suspect their question is overly inclusive. Bloomberg hasn’t released the question text yet, so we’ll have to see.
Libertarian Vote
At Foundation for Economic Education, I talk with Mike Van Winkle about the libertarian vote, libertarians uneasy relationship with conservatives and Republicans, and the prospects of libertarians becoming a political force in the 2010 elections and beyond.
For listeners who are joining us from FEE’s website, I’d welcome your comments and thoughts here.
Political future of Millennials uncertain
Much has been written about Pew’s recent study on Milliennals, showing a generation that is more ideologically liberal and pro-government than previous generations. But a counter narrative seems to be emerging, reported at the Fiscal Times:
[Millennials are] collecting unemployment, signing up for food stamps, moving back home, and growing increasingly concerned about the future. A New York Times/CBS poll showed that 46 percent of Americans think the younger generations will be worse off than their parents, up from 32 percent last year. The Millennials — people born around 1980 and coming of age at the turn of the century — are the largest generation in the history of the country, about 80 million strong. In The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation Is Shaking Up the Workplace, Ron Alsop wrote, “If there is one overriding perception of the Millennial generation, it’s that these young people have great — and sometimes outlandish — expectations.” Described as confident, tech-savvy and optimistic, they are now seeing the American dream they once felt entitled to slipping through their fingers.
What will be the impact of this trend? Will Millennials become dependent on government or disillusioned with government? As David Boaz and I argued in our Cato study, “Libertarian Vote in Age of Obama,” Millennials seem prone to disillusionment, given the evidence of 9/11 and the Iraq war. And it is also true that there is a larger percentage of libertarian-leaning Millennials than in previous generations. But the ideological outlook for this generation seems very much uncertain.
Regardless, this is an opportunity for us in the business of educating about free markets. We should connect the dots for this generation, between the world of limitless opportunities they have come to expect and the structures of a free society that produce them.
That’s not quite right
Did passing healthcare reform help or hurt the chances of Republicans taking over the House? Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight looks at the relationship between the two Intrade contracts:
The chart below tracks the daily close of the ‘Obamacare’ contract at Intrade — which has been live since January 21st — and compares it against the contract representing a GOP takeover of the House. The correlation is positive (and statistically significant) but the magnitude of the effect is small: Intrade infers that Republicans would have had a 40 percent chance of taking over the House had the Democrats not passed Obamacare, but about a 47 percent chance now that they have.
I agree that you can say the correlation is positive. But you can’t conclude from this data that the magnitude is small. We’re humble here at SometimesRight. But, Nate, that’s not quite right.
Prediction markets aggregate knowledge at a particular time. And the key piece of knowledge to track here is sort of a hidden third variable–call it “potency of healthcare as an election winning issue for House Republicans” or “healthcare potency” for short. You’d be interested in measuring the slope of this line–that would tell you whether the magnitude is small or large. Of course, there isn’t an Intrade contract for healthcare potency, so you’re left to guess like everyone else.
But as long as we’re guessing, we can likely infer that both of these contracts would be positively correlated to healthcare potency. The Democrats effort to pass healthcare reform certainly kept the issue in the public eye. And House Republicans are more likely to go with a “repeal” campaign on health care reform, adding to the potency of healthcare to their overall election chances.
But how much more potent is the issue between January and today? Because when Scott Brown won Massachusetts, it was already obvious that the issue would be potent. The question is this: given our knowledge today, what is the relative additional contribution to healthcare potency–given the economy, jobs, Afghanistan, Iran, and the many other potentially potent election issues–to Republican’s chances of taking the House?
The fact that you could see any relationship at all between these two contracts implies that the movement in healthcare potency is fairly large, not small. That’s counter to Nate’s wisdom for Democrats: “if you told the Democrats that the price of passing their health care bill was to go from having a 40 percent chance of losing the House for two years to a 47 percent chance, do you think they would have done it?”
