Vote for two Democrats and call me in the morning....
An eager reader forwards me this Mother Jones article that says, based on research by UNL political scientist Mitchel Herian, that more liberal states have healthier people:
Why might liberal states have healthier residents? The hypothesis that Herian's paper set out to test is quite simple: Democratic or liberal states do more to make their populations healthier—for example, through spending more on health care programs and general social safety net programs. And those policies work, or at least mostly work; hence, their populations are indeed healthier. "We're definitely talking about the election of Democrats leading to better health outcomes because they adopt policies designed to lead to the better well being of individuals," says Herian [Chris Mooney, "Is Liberalism Good for Your Health?" Mother Jones, 2014.03.25].
I question the validity of this article for one reason: it labels South Dakota a "moderate" state.
The most compelling chart in the article shows the relationship among three variables: political inclination (conservative to liberal), health, and social capital, the sense of trust and connection people feel with their neighbors.
Note that "more conservative" states spread across the health range, "moderate" states less so. "More liberal" states cluster in the top half of the health range. But in a fun misalignment of visual metaphor, all three groups of states in the healthier range show similarly fat blobs of social capital. Social capital isn't everything—"moderate" South Dakota shows more social capital than "moderate" Minnesota, but Minnesota is healthier—but the blobs suggest it's something. Those trusting yahoos in Idaho manage to be just as healthy as those wacky but solo-bowling libs in Hawaii and Delaware.
Why would social capital make a potentially politics-trumping difference on health?
Why living in a place where you're more trusting of your neighbors equates to better health isn't entirely clear. But one idea, according to Herian, is that "in places of higher levels of trust, there might be more voluntary organizations, religious organizations, that are designed to improve the health and well being of people." (Indeed, one of the leading theorists of social capital, Robert Putnam, put considerable emphasis on the role of religion in cementing community bonds in his influential book Bowling Alone.) The study found that in states with high levels of liberalism, social capital didn't have all that much of an impact on health. However, in conservative states, social capital (or the lack thereof) made a big difference [Mooney, 2014.03.25].
So perhaps if you're worried about keeping your state healthy, you can vote Republican, as long as you feel like you and your neighbors all trust each other enough to form voluntary organizations and drive each other to the hospital. But just as you can order whole-grain toast and organic oatmeal, why not build trust and vote for liberals?
Yep, you can tell we are redder than a radish here in South Dakota. We loves us some tobacco and smoke with complete disregard to ourselves and others. Alcohol, it is just like organic cereal to be consumed to full saturation. And what about weight, no problems there either, we see a cake and that baby is ours man with extra syrup. We cannot walk to hunt so we prefer to drive by and if they are not in the ditch, there simply are no birds or mountain lions (hello Gordo Howie). Yep that is how we roll in a red state.
In other words, it seems you are suggesting that this survey would lead us to conclude that - left or right - a reliance on mediating institutions (family, religion, clubs, bowling leagues, neighborhood groups, etc.), with the connections and trust that tend to accompany such reliance, leads to better health than reliance on political/government solutions.
I concur.
So let's figure out ways to encourage those mediating institutions rather than reliance on government/political solutions. A smaller national government strikes me as a necessary, though not sufficient, part of that.
I have a hard time trusting some religious figures with human souls and certainly wouldn't allow them near my kids or Grandkids. Check that. Not allowing them near my kids is an easy call. When the lord said suffer the little children,I'm guessing pedophilia isn't what he had in mind.
To be absolutely clear,I do not claim to be a biblical expert.
On the contrary PNR, that is not what is witnessed. More government involvement to finally kill the tobacco beast itself. More government intervention to stop the corn syrup that is devastating our health with the crap we consume (so called food). More mental health intervention to help slow the flow of alcohol abuse. A smaller national government would only make matters worse.
PNR, you can't look at the above information and say social capital produces better results than liberal politics. Using language and data carefully, we can say the data suggest that social capital makes up for the absence of liberal politics in producing good health results.
Cory-The results seem more influenced by social capital than by politics, left or right. Social capital also seems to be independent of political leanings. I am not, for the moment, challenging how "social capital," "liberal," "conservative," or "moderate" are defined or delving deeply into methodology of the study (what other factors are in play and how are they controlled for?). Just taking it at face value, the primary indicator of positive health results is high levels of social capital not voting patterns or liberal/conservative politics.
Question: What promotes development of social capital? That is, what encourages and fosters the kinds of mediating institutions that make for this social capital? What stifles or weakens them?
It seems to me rather obvious that large national programs imposing a one-size-fits-all answer on significantly divergent communities tend to stifle or weaken them. That includes, Jerry, anti-tobacco efforts. Nobody takes up smoking today not knowing that it's bad for their overall health. And nobody quits because the Surgeon General has warned them. They quit because their family members, personal physician, or someone else whom they trust encourages them to do so. Mediating institutions, not national government agencies, are determinative. To the extent government actions are significant in determining the decision to quit, it is local and state government action, not national.
Mike-in-Iowa - religious people have no monopoly on sins of that sort and it is a disgustingly unjust insinuation that all religious people are pedophiles. It is also illogical and irrational. I could probably find some cases involving people in Iowa who are pedophiles, but I would never draw from that the conclusion that I should never allow my kids near Iowans.
There's such a priest shortage now that altar boys have had to start groping themselves.
I heard that one yesterday, gotta hear a good joke once in awhile!
PNR, I agree in part with your reading of the chart. The data show high-social capital states consistently scoring higher on health, while showing conservative and moderate states matching liberal states' high healthy scores. But even the liberal states with lower social capital (see NY and CT) score equal to or higher than moderate and conservative states with higher social capital.
But consider the predictive power of this statement: "A liberal state will have a health score higher than 3.4." That prediction fails once, 11% of the time. That's almost as strong a predictor as "States with higher social capital will have a health score higher than 3.4." We can't look at this data and say, "It's all social capital!" Politics plays a notable role as well. That's why I chose to spotlight that combo chart mentioning both.
I disagree that it is seemingly obvious (red alert!) that big government programs stifle social capital, at least not from this data. If federal government oppression stifles social capital, that should be a uniform effect across the country. How would such an effect manifest itself in this data, other than by shrinking every blob by some similar percentage but leaving us with the same state-to-state differences?
You posit that local and state governments make the difference in affecting health behaviors. But more vigorous state governments would set off the researcher's liberal-meter and pin their blips to the right side of the scale above. So your statement seems to support exactly the "liberal states are healthier" thesis that Mother Jones headlined. Which is it?
PNR-I didn't insinuate all religious people are pedophiles. There are plenty out there who are and are being protected by other religious people. Any idea what the word some means?
As I said, giving it just a surface look. Many of the states in the "conservative" or "moderate" camp with low social capital and low health scores suffer from other pathologies which cannot be attributed merely to their current politics as is noted by the fact most of them are along either Appalachia or the former confederacy. Because the local "social capital" was often blatantly oppressive over the century from 1865-1964, the decision was made to explicitly deconstruct those societies - to destroy their social capital. This has worked, but the reconstruction of a more just society has lagged. I think, perhaps, that policies intended to break down the old order have been maintained too long, thus preventing reformation of social capital, but in addition to being an entirely new topic, determining that requires far more data and thought than I'm going to contribute right now.
In any event, suffice to say that on the basis of this data alone, without knowing what other factors are involved and whether or not the researchers adequately controlled for them, we should hesitate to conclude that liberalism per se yields better health outcomes (or that conservatism doesn't), but one can say that higher social capital does.
Looking, then, for sources of agreement that might allow us to cooperate rather than contend, it seems we can together ask, and ought to ask, what fosters (and what detracts from) social capital formation. Per your comments and the study's definition of what constitutes "social capital," it seems systems and approaches which encourage mediating institutions are to be preferred - not that this is a panacea, only that it is preferred.
A robust federal system establishes state and local governments as mediating institutions alongside other voluntary groups (church, club, etc., etc.). A federal government that usurps state and local government, robs them of decision-making authority (or seduces it away from them), or imposes uniformity across divergent communities is, by definition, weakening the mediating institutions of local and state governments. This seems to me obvious for doing so forces citizens to choose between local and national loyalties, and as not all in a community will weigh these competing loyalties the same, it will also, necessarily, foster distrust among neighbors.
So I do not see a contradiction between positing that local and state governments can have a far more positive impact on health outcomes than the federal government even if they are, in my view, more intrusive than they ought to be, while positing that big government is inimical to social capital formation.
As I indicate in the first paragraph, there are times when the latter may be necessary and I do not regret deploying the 101st to force integration in Little Rock (by way of one example). But it is a severe remedy to a severe danger. Such measures should be used sparingly and be of limited duration.
Mike-in-Iowa,
Yes, I know what "some" means. I also know what you wrote, which went from "some religious figures" to a far broader sweep, unless you presume to be able to know ahead of time which religious figures tend to such acts.
I am well aware that some in positions of authority choose to hide the misdeeds of their subordinates in order to protect the reputation of their institution - this, too, is not unique to religious institutions. Police departments, the IRS, other government agencies, schools (public and private), the military, and many more have all been known to do it.
Are you going to keep your kids and grandkids away from cops, IRS agents, school teachers, and soldiers, too?
PNR, Mike. Better add school janitors to that list. There is a man in MN who has been at it for 11 years.
I'd put MN in the liberal column and New Mexico in the moderate group. NM is an outlier in many ways.
NM is very liberal on immigration issues, yet heavily traditional Roman Catholic on many other social issues. There are 2 million people, 46% are Latinas. Whites are a minority. There is a large contingent of artistic, liberal types too.
Anyway, back to the chart.
Jenny, you made spittle fly onto my tablet with that joke!!! I was not expecting it!
Thank you.
PNR-I'd certainly trust a public sector employee who has had background checks and evaluations long before trusting someone in a private organization,including Boy Scouts,who have had their share of pedo problems. Maybe some churches should install 24 hour surveillance cameras.
Bad Jenny! Good joke.
"Why living in a place where you're more trusting of your neighbors equates to better health isn't entirely clear. "
Well...I know I am always a few plumbs off center and...
I am an angry old white, hippie, feminist and do not deserve to live in SD.
My best trustworthy neighbors were 2 lesbians, who are Dems, love to drink beer and smoke cigarettes and have always made sure I am alive and well. That is the way it has been for 20 years. They move across town....no I do not feel safe anymore. Does that count?