But when you look a little more, only 20% say that socialism is better than capitalism, and 27% “don’t know.” Rasumussen specifically notes that they didn’t define either term, which leads me to think that this poll might be a better indicator of Americans’ economic understanding than their ideological stance. Rasmussen cites another poll in which 70% of respondents prefer “free markets” over some alternative. Rasmussen interprets this as evidence that Americans aren’t convinced that are markets are free. It might just as well mean that people don’t know what capitalism is, and don’t know what free markets are¹.

It is also interesting that socialism is far more popular among younger people. Perhaps many of the older generations remember the Cold War better, and because they lived then, have a better handle on the differences between capitalism and socialism. It could also be that older people typically have more “skin in the game” and thus actually care enough about economic policies to know their preferences.

It seems that the headline tries to shock by suggesting that support for capitalism is weak. In fact, the details seem to suggest that economic understanding is weak. A comparison to an earlier poll with the same questions would help, but it looks like Rasmussen might be trying for a shock value without much backup.

1. The term “free” has a strong emotive appeal in America, and people often will gravitate toward things that are “free” regardless of whether the thing is actually “free”. One wonders how people would respond if the term were “liberal economics.” back↩

In particular, it seems that ICR is the intended beneficiary of this change, which apparently would allow them to grant the M.S. without state permission or regulation.

Some thoughts:

It is in a sense unfortunate that education has become such a political football. I have absolutely no problem with the state controlling education in a limited sense. It is in the interest of the state to do so. However, the politicization of education means that serious discussions about its goals and procedures will be heavily colored by political rhetoric. Again, the political rhetoric is necessary in the abstract, but modern American political rhetoric is simply too weak to substantively address the weight of a robust educational debate.

I don’t know that I would support this bill. On the one hand, I think it would be a good thing if ICR could issue an M.S. It sounds like much of the opposition is ideological — the education board doesn’t want to condone, or possibly even permit, creationism. But the bill would have far wider consequences. Basically it would allow non-profit, non-government-funded schools to invent and issue whatever degrees they wish. Eugenie Scott, quoted in the FoxNews article, makes this very point, and with good support.

It sounds like ICR is appealing to the state board for the right to issue the degree under the current statute. I think this is the route to take. I’m sure the state representative is well-meaning, but I fear that his approach is likely to further discredit schools like ICR.

In the news article, Scott claims that ICR’s offering is vastly inferior to UT’s or Baylor’s. According to his article, his primary concern is the ICR position that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. I fail to see how this point is relevant, except in the sense that it treats seriously a view that a fairly decent percentage of Americans actually hold.

I would be curious to see exactly how ICR is pursuing their court appeal with the state board — on what grounds to they claim the right to issue the degree?

So it seems there are actually two issues here. First, ICR claims the right to some sort of equal protection/fairness for their views, religious though they may be. I tend to side with them on this point, at least in a qualified, theoretical sense. Second, the bill at hand proposes to vastly expand the powers non-profit groups to award state-recognized degrees. I tend to oppose this point. It is not in the interest of the state or most of its citizens to devalue degrees. But it looks like several critics of the bill are conflating these two points. They recognize the impact of the bill, but they can’t seem to get away from their instinctive opposition to a creationist perspective. I think the best solution would be for the state to find a way to objectively assess the quality of ICR’s program, without any prejudice for or against a religious position and its implications, and then to grant or deny the degree based on the assessment. The bill is too much

October 21, 2008 (on TARP)

It’s an economic proposal that does nothing to rebuild our economy, but everything to continue the same failed policies of the past eight years – when speculators gamed the system, regulators looked the other way, and lobbyists bought their way into our government. It’s the same failed politics of decrying greed on Wall Street one minute, and then rewarding that greed the next minute with tax cuts for Wall Street corporations and CEOs.¹ It’s the same failed philosophy: give more and more to those with the most and hope prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

Note the shift from October to February. No longer does he decry the “failed policies.” Now he calls them “failed theories.” Nice shift. It lets him ignore what actually happened while attacking the Republicans’ stated philosophy. Thus, since his philosophy is different (so he says), he can claim to be breaking from the past.

Feb 9, 2009 (Press Conference)

“What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested and they have failed. And that’s part of what the election in November was all about. Okay?”

“When I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history….when they start characterizing this as pork without acknowledging that there are no earmarks² in this package — something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years — then you get a feeling that maybe we’re playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people.”

“When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I’m not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.”

The Republicans’ lack of discipline is coming back to bite them, but at this point, I suspect the American public is less interested in the errors of the past and more interested in the prospects of economic improvement. Isn’t that what this whole “looking forward” approach is all about?

1. At least he’s not doing this anymore. Wall Street execs are going to get slammed, even as he decries their greed. back↩
2. Definition, please? I don’t think many people really believe this line. back↩