An Interesting Difference in Attitudes
Now that I'm caught up with grading, I'm doing some more "fun stuff" here at work - like skimming party platforms.
A while ago, one of my friends wrote a post suggesting that the language used by Democrats toward Republicans was a bit nastier than that used by Republicans toward Democrats - in particular, it is far more "personal". While I thought (and still think) his post is very interesting, I had my doubts about his data. After all, things tend to feel nastier when they're attacking things I like rather than things I dislike - so there's a natural cognitive bias.
This afternoon, I went looking for data in the party platforms. I thought I'd just look in each party for how they talked about the opposing Presidential Candidate. So, here we go...
In the Republican platform, there is only one mention of Pres. Obama by name (not including the half-dozen "Obamacare" references). Here it is: "In response to these growing threats [in the international sphere], President Obama has reduced the defense budget by over $487 billion over the next decade and fought Republican efforts to avoid another $500 billion in automatic budget cuts through a sequestration in early 2013 that will take a meat ax to all major defense programs."
I think it's interesting that the language surrounding Pres Obama's name is so neutral. "has reduced" rather than "has slashed" or even "has cut" - though that kind of language does appear with the mention of a "meat ax". But, even then, it's pointed out that those cuts are automatic.
How many mentions did Mitt Romney get in the Republican party platform? Well, in the platform itself - zero. He only got one mention in the Preamble.
The Democratic platform is remarkably different. Mitt Romney appears in it as something like a major villain. Romney's name appears 22 times in the 32 pages of their platform. (Pres Obama's appears 141 times in those 32 pages - and that ignores the many times that he's referred to simply as "The President".) Let's take a look at how the Democratic Party officially talks about Mitt Romney:
"We Democrats offer America the opportunity to move our country forward by creating an economy built to last and built from the middle out. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party have a drastically different vision. They still believe the best way to grow the economy is from the top down - the same approach that benefited the wealthy few but crashed the economy and crushed the middle class. "
"The Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have a very different idea about where they want to take this country. To pay for their trillions in additional tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires, they’ll raise taxes on the middle class and gut our investments in education, research and technology, and new roads, bridges, and airports. "
"That is why we will always vigorously oppose the type of tax reform supported by Mitt Romney, which independent experts have found would require raising taxes on typical families with children by at least $2,000 if it were paid for. At the same time, Mitt Romney’s plan would cut taxes for those making over $3 million by an average of $250,000 and would create incentives that will lead to hundreds of thousands of jobs going overseas at the expense of American workers. "
"Mitt Romney and the Republican Party would repeal health reform. They are more concerned with playing politics than supporting families in this country."
"Mitt Romney has a radically different vision. He says we need fewer teachers, cops, and firefighters - good middle class jobs - even after losing hundreds of thousands of such jobs during the recession and at a time when state, local, and territorial governments are still shedding these jobs."
"Tuition at public colleges has soared over the last decade and students are graduating with more and more debt; but Mitt Romney thinks students should “shop around” for the “best education they can afford.” "
"We Democrats have focused on making sure that taxpayer dollars support high-quality education programs, but Mitt Romney is a staunch supporter of expensive, for-profit schools - schools that often leave students buried in debt and without the skills for quality jobs and that prey on our servicemembers and veterans. "
"The Republican Party has a different vision-instead of asking everyone to do their fair share and making investments we need for an economy built to last, they would slash taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, let Wall Street once again write its own rules, and balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. Romney and Congressional Republicans share the same, distorted view of the economy and support the same, lopsided budget. Romney would roll back the tax relief Democrats provided to working families and college students, and would require massive new taxes on the middle class to pay for his $5 trillion tax plan that primarily benefits the wealthy. "
"Mitt Romney thought the government’s action would destroy the auto industry; he and Republican leaders opposed the support President Obama extended to rescue an iconic industry. "
"We know that the free market only works when there are rules of the road to ensure that competition is fair, open, and honest. Mitt Romney and the Republicans would roll back financial reform and let Wall Street write its own rules again. "
"Mitt Romney’s opposition to commonsense campaign finance is nothing less than support for corporate and special-interest takeovers in our elections. "
"Mitt Romney and his allies in Congress believe that the best way to grow the economy is from the top down - the same approach that benefited a few, but crashed the economy, hurt the middle class, and contributed to soaring income inequality. "
"Republicans like Mitt Romney want to turn back the clock on the progress we’ve made, telling people whom they can marry, restricting women’s access to birth control coverage, and going back to the same economic policies that benefited the wealthy but crashed our economy. Their narrow vision is of an America where everyone is left to fend for themselves and the powerful can write their own rules."
"President Obama and the Democratic Party stand for comprehensive immigration reform that intelligently prioritizes our country’s security and economic needs, while Mitt Romney and the Republicans have opposed commonsense reforms and pandered to the far right."
"Mitt Romney would raise taxes on low- and middle-income Americans to fund his tax breaks weighted toward the wealthiest."
"President Obama and Democrats are fighting for new funding that will help keep cops on the street and support our police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Republicans and Mitt Romney have opposed and even ridiculed these proposals, but we believe we should support our first responders."
"Many Republicans, including Mitt Romney, would have preferred to leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq in an open-ended commitment, against the will of the Iraqi government and people. "
"Mitt Romney has been both for and against our timeline to end the war in Afghanistan, but he has failed to outline any policy ideas for how he would bring our troops home and, at times, has suggested he would leave them there indefinitely. "
"Yet despite bipartisan consensus among former National Security Advisors, Secretaries of Defense, and Secretaries of State that New START makes America safer, Mitt Romney strongly objected to the treaty."
"The Cold War mentality represented by Mitt Romney’s identification of Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” ignores the very real common interest we share with Russia in reducing nuclear stockpiles, stopping additional proliferation by countries such as Iran and North Korea, and preventing nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists."
Note that the tone isn't just factual. It's often accusatory. Mitt Romney and the Republicans "crashed the economy", "are more concerned with playing politics", "turn back the clock on progress".
In the end, I can't help but think that my friend's data is right. The Democrats are far more likely to go on the attack (In their 32 page platform, they mention "Republicans" 37 times), and to make the attack more personal than the Republicans are. (The Republicans only mentioned the "Democrats" 15 times in their 50 page platform.)
I'd also note a strange difference in tone if you skim the platforms. The Democrat platform reads like an angry blog post. The Republican platform feels more professional. For example, the first paragraphs:
"Four years ago, Democrats, independents, and many Republicans came together as Americans to move our country forward. We were in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the previous administration had put two wars on our nation’s credit card, and the American Dream had slipped out of reach for too many. "
"We are the party of maximum economic freedom and the prosperity freedom makes possible. Prosperity is the product of self-discipline, work, savings, and investment by individual Americans, but it is not an end in itself. Prosperity provides the means by which individuals and families can maintain their independence from government, raise their children by
their own values, practice their faith, and build communities of self-reliant neighbors. It is also the means by which the United States is able to assert global leadership. The vigor of our economy makes possible our military strength and is critical to our national security."
The Democratic Party platform starts with accusations against the Republicans. In contrast, the Republican Party platform starts by laying out its basic principles. (I'd note that the Libertarian Party is even more devoted to principles - its platform doesn't even mention the other parties at all.)
I was a bit surprised to see that the tone from the official parties was that different, but there it is.
A while ago, one of my friends wrote a post suggesting that the language used by Democrats toward Republicans was a bit nastier than that used by Republicans toward Democrats - in particular, it is far more "personal". While I thought (and still think) his post is very interesting, I had my doubts about his data. After all, things tend to feel nastier when they're attacking things I like rather than things I dislike - so there's a natural cognitive bias.
This afternoon, I went looking for data in the party platforms. I thought I'd just look in each party for how they talked about the opposing Presidential Candidate. So, here we go...
In the Republican platform, there is only one mention of Pres. Obama by name (not including the half-dozen "Obamacare" references). Here it is: "In response to these growing threats [in the international sphere], President Obama has reduced the defense budget by over $487 billion over the next decade and fought Republican efforts to avoid another $500 billion in automatic budget cuts through a sequestration in early 2013 that will take a meat ax to all major defense programs."
I think it's interesting that the language surrounding Pres Obama's name is so neutral. "has reduced" rather than "has slashed" or even "has cut" - though that kind of language does appear with the mention of a "meat ax". But, even then, it's pointed out that those cuts are automatic.
How many mentions did Mitt Romney get in the Republican party platform? Well, in the platform itself - zero. He only got one mention in the Preamble.
The Democratic platform is remarkably different. Mitt Romney appears in it as something like a major villain. Romney's name appears 22 times in the 32 pages of their platform. (Pres Obama's appears 141 times in those 32 pages - and that ignores the many times that he's referred to simply as "The President".) Let's take a look at how the Democratic Party officially talks about Mitt Romney:
"We Democrats offer America the opportunity to move our country forward by creating an economy built to last and built from the middle out. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party have a drastically different vision. They still believe the best way to grow the economy is from the top down - the same approach that benefited the wealthy few but crashed the economy and crushed the middle class. "
"The Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have a very different idea about where they want to take this country. To pay for their trillions in additional tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires, they’ll raise taxes on the middle class and gut our investments in education, research and technology, and new roads, bridges, and airports. "
"That is why we will always vigorously oppose the type of tax reform supported by Mitt Romney, which independent experts have found would require raising taxes on typical families with children by at least $2,000 if it were paid for. At the same time, Mitt Romney’s plan would cut taxes for those making over $3 million by an average of $250,000 and would create incentives that will lead to hundreds of thousands of jobs going overseas at the expense of American workers. "
"Mitt Romney and the Republican Party would repeal health reform. They are more concerned with playing politics than supporting families in this country."
"Mitt Romney has a radically different vision. He says we need fewer teachers, cops, and firefighters - good middle class jobs - even after losing hundreds of thousands of such jobs during the recession and at a time when state, local, and territorial governments are still shedding these jobs."
"Tuition at public colleges has soared over the last decade and students are graduating with more and more debt; but Mitt Romney thinks students should “shop around” for the “best education they can afford.” "
"We Democrats have focused on making sure that taxpayer dollars support high-quality education programs, but Mitt Romney is a staunch supporter of expensive, for-profit schools - schools that often leave students buried in debt and without the skills for quality jobs and that prey on our servicemembers and veterans. "
"The Republican Party has a different vision-instead of asking everyone to do their fair share and making investments we need for an economy built to last, they would slash taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, let Wall Street once again write its own rules, and balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. Romney and Congressional Republicans share the same, distorted view of the economy and support the same, lopsided budget. Romney would roll back the tax relief Democrats provided to working families and college students, and would require massive new taxes on the middle class to pay for his $5 trillion tax plan that primarily benefits the wealthy. "
"Mitt Romney thought the government’s action would destroy the auto industry; he and Republican leaders opposed the support President Obama extended to rescue an iconic industry. "
"We know that the free market only works when there are rules of the road to ensure that competition is fair, open, and honest. Mitt Romney and the Republicans would roll back financial reform and let Wall Street write its own rules again. "
"Mitt Romney’s opposition to commonsense campaign finance is nothing less than support for corporate and special-interest takeovers in our elections. "
"Mitt Romney and his allies in Congress believe that the best way to grow the economy is from the top down - the same approach that benefited a few, but crashed the economy, hurt the middle class, and contributed to soaring income inequality. "
"Republicans like Mitt Romney want to turn back the clock on the progress we’ve made, telling people whom they can marry, restricting women’s access to birth control coverage, and going back to the same economic policies that benefited the wealthy but crashed our economy. Their narrow vision is of an America where everyone is left to fend for themselves and the powerful can write their own rules."
"President Obama and the Democratic Party stand for comprehensive immigration reform that intelligently prioritizes our country’s security and economic needs, while Mitt Romney and the Republicans have opposed commonsense reforms and pandered to the far right."
"Mitt Romney would raise taxes on low- and middle-income Americans to fund his tax breaks weighted toward the wealthiest."
"President Obama and Democrats are fighting for new funding that will help keep cops on the street and support our police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Republicans and Mitt Romney have opposed and even ridiculed these proposals, but we believe we should support our first responders."
"Many Republicans, including Mitt Romney, would have preferred to leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq in an open-ended commitment, against the will of the Iraqi government and people. "
"Mitt Romney has been both for and against our timeline to end the war in Afghanistan, but he has failed to outline any policy ideas for how he would bring our troops home and, at times, has suggested he would leave them there indefinitely. "
"Yet despite bipartisan consensus among former National Security Advisors, Secretaries of Defense, and Secretaries of State that New START makes America safer, Mitt Romney strongly objected to the treaty."
"The Cold War mentality represented by Mitt Romney’s identification of Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” ignores the very real common interest we share with Russia in reducing nuclear stockpiles, stopping additional proliferation by countries such as Iran and North Korea, and preventing nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists."
Note that the tone isn't just factual. It's often accusatory. Mitt Romney and the Republicans "crashed the economy", "are more concerned with playing politics", "turn back the clock on progress".
In the end, I can't help but think that my friend's data is right. The Democrats are far more likely to go on the attack (In their 32 page platform, they mention "Republicans" 37 times), and to make the attack more personal than the Republicans are. (The Republicans only mentioned the "Democrats" 15 times in their 50 page platform.)
I'd also note a strange difference in tone if you skim the platforms. The Democrat platform reads like an angry blog post. The Republican platform feels more professional. For example, the first paragraphs:
"Four years ago, Democrats, independents, and many Republicans came together as Americans to move our country forward. We were in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the previous administration had put two wars on our nation’s credit card, and the American Dream had slipped out of reach for too many. "
"We are the party of maximum economic freedom and the prosperity freedom makes possible. Prosperity is the product of self-discipline, work, savings, and investment by individual Americans, but it is not an end in itself. Prosperity provides the means by which individuals and families can maintain their independence from government, raise their children by
their own values, practice their faith, and build communities of self-reliant neighbors. It is also the means by which the United States is able to assert global leadership. The vigor of our economy makes possible our military strength and is critical to our national security."
The Democratic Party platform starts with accusations against the Republicans. In contrast, the Republican Party platform starts by laying out its basic principles. (I'd note that the Libertarian Party is even more devoted to principles - its platform doesn't even mention the other parties at all.)
I was a bit surprised to see that the tone from the official parties was that different, but there it is.