Thread by @knrd_z

[Political] Science has spoken! America staggers toward authoritarianism. But not just the US, the GOP specifically. Nor is this some wacky Woke think-piece. It’s hard data, numbers, math.

Do you believe #Science?

https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1327021548906049536

Let’s watch science in action.

To start, how is the data generated? Expert opinion, of course! What better way to measure elusive concepts than to poll objective, dispassionate scientists?

Take a look at V-Dem’s scientific democracy measures. They begin with a difficult to measure concept: illiberalism.

Republicans have made great strides in illiberalism. “Disrespects opponents” and “encourages violence” are worth special attention.

A nice time-series shows the increase in “demonization” started around 2006.

What changed? WaPo, citing “research,” says it was around that time that the Tea Party started comparing Obama to the Nazis.

Prior to Obama, no US President received widespread condemnation as a Nazi in public discourse.

Around the same time, the GOP became “more willing to incite violence.”

While empirical support of this claim is lacking, it is true, as WaPo claims, that some Trump supporters have committed acts of violence.

Democrats, as the data show, have remained firm in their disavowal of violence.

So facts are thin, but at least we can fall back on expert judgement about “inciting violence.”

I am certain that hundreds of political scientists would not falsely accuse the US President of courting white supremacists.

Next section: populism. Clearly “anti-elitism” and “people-centric” are . . . anti-democratic. (Dems move forward on the former, backward on the latter).

But clearly “anti-immigration” is undemocratic, at least.

Unless you realize that it is perfectly sound to argue that anti-immigration policies are _more_ democratic.

Ignore that open immigration was pursued by elites despite popular pushback. Oh, that’s why “anti-elitism” is anti-democratic. Hmm

One might claim, “but Evil, they are talking about _liberal_ democracy!”

First objection: is that what it sounds like V-Dem is doing? Are they not perhaps conflating the two, even deliberately?

Second objection: does it seem like a field of predominately “liberal” elites, where liberal is defined the same way as “liberal democracy” (excludes “anti-elitism”), is not a little self-serving to label its team the good guys?

And these data generators decide what “democracy,” liberal or otherwise, includes.

Why isn’t right to bear arms included, but “anti-immigration” is, when there is even less precedent (historical and theoretical) for making the later a hallmark of democracy?

Thought experiment: why no massive survey of 600 mostly conservative political scientists to measure “classical democracy,” or something, finding that Democrats undermine its sacred norms?

Perhaps you hate it, but is it less “scientific”? Are there grant dollars for it?

And here’s the main point: these studies aren’t “measuring” democracy, they are _defining_ it.

They “measure” things they believe constitute democracy, with weak justification, and then, lo and behold, tell you (with media help) that the other team are authoritarians.

“But Evil,” you cry, “aren’t there more objective indicators of democracy? Doesn’t V-Dem have those?”

Okay, let’s look at those.

Here is V-Dem’s “Electoral Democracy Index.”

Hmm, why does US decline in 2016? No Russia hoax explanations, these are serious scientists. Note that this ends before 2020.

But enough about V-Dem, let’s look at other datasets with “objective indicators,” such as the Election Integrity Index.

Oh wow, some US states rank below Cuba and North Korea! Very objective indeed, Harvard professors.

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/01/02/abo…

And wait, the flawed, objective data, like Polity and Freedom House, is older than V-Dem.

Political science didn’t like measuring their concepts with indicators, so now it’s touting its questionable consensus as fact. Not the reverse. Get those cites up, boys!

Concepts are derived from theories and indicators are used to measure them. If your theory (re: ideology) is “liberal,” defined as elite management, then so is your concept of democracy. Next, to measure it ask yourself whether the GOP fits your concept.

"The data show. . ."

Social science concepts can _shape_ what they study. (Big brain term: reflexivity).

EIU quickly downgraded the US to “flawed democracy” in 2016 for . . . reasons. Does this normative concept not shape how people perceive their country, hence the country itself? “My legitimacy!”

“Democracy” is not quantifiable because it’s a _value_. It’s the same as a “love” or “evilness” index.

One measure is simply whether there are competitive elections. You can measure that, but is it the norm “democracy”? Can you measure who follows protean ideals?

Why not take any ancient Greek ideal and create a clever little index and rank humans according to them? Make a Kathekon scale.

“Um, don’t psychologists do that?” Congrats, you found a field dumber than polisci.

Here’s a longer explanation because, well, it’s just so exhausting and it’s not my job to educate you (BREAKING: @knrd_z climbs in the liberal democracy index).

h/t @postpostpostr

samzdat.com/2018/03/26/ent…

Good social science is not impossible.

But it has decided to blind you with ggplot and meaningless numbers to disarm you while at the same time imposing their vapid values (who has time to read theory and ethics when you need to get all three stars).

The methodology masks that they have utterly lost the ability to think. They think they do (thanks, grade inflation), but many have never seriously thought about democracy.

More than evil, they are like a tard who pounds the table because he can’t remember how to spell his name

“Democracy index,” “authoritarian personality,” “racial resentment.” All these “measures” need to be laughed out of existence. When they ask, “where’s your data,” make some up on the spot, it’s standard practice.

(Retweet to avoid getting downgraded to “limited follower”.)