Santorum and Clinton

In the previous article I alluded to a brief, albeit somewhat light-hearted confrontation between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.  This confrontation was sparked by the recent publication of Sen. Santorum's new treatise, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2005.)  The title of this book was clearly intended to rebut Sen. Clinton's previous work, It Takes a Village (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996)  Of course, since it is no secret that Sen. Clinton has entertained presidential aspirations since at least that time, and speculation about Sen. Santorum's ambitions have suggested the same, it is again fitting that these two possible presidential hopefuls be identified within the LEO model previously described.

Rick Santorum
I first analyzed Rick Santorum about a year ago, and had been sitting on the results until such time as I could clarify the method and firmly establish a venue for these findings.   At the time I limited the analysis to an overview of Sen. Santorum's webpage and the Congress which had been meeting at the time, the 108th, as well as the 107th Congress.  Consequently the results on hand only offer a small snapshot of Santorum's overall position, and will need to be updated.  Another Congress has convened, and a new sponsorship record is available.   Also, a sample of sponsorship records from previous Congresses of which Santorum was a member (Santorum's freshman Congress was the 104th) need to be collected and analyzed in a similar manner as John Kerry's record had been, so that a general trend may be identified.

Furthermore, Sen. Santorum's issue pages should be itemized and analyzed separately, in a similar manner to the President's issues pages. 

All this may take a couple of days to process.  As it stands, the first dataset includes a context-sensitive handcount of ideological indicators for the sample.  While a context-sensitive analysis may in some circumstances provide an accurate measure, it is far more cumbersome and time-consuming than the somewhat automated approach employed more recently. 
Nevertheless, the preliminary conclusions  regarding Sen. Santorum's general ideological profile over the 107th and 108th Congresses as well as on his website (back in 2004) are provided below (Click to Enlarge):

Raw Scores:

Percentages:

For the most part, the preliminary analysis of Sen. Santorum suggests that his rhetoric is largely consistent either with a conservative ideologue or a conservative hard-liner.  For those familiar with the Pennsylvania Senator, this was expected.  It also should come as no surprise that on the whole, Senator Santorum's secondary preference is largely libertarian, although according to the results above, his impulse towards liberty is greatly overshadowed by his preference for order.

The process of building a new sample of Sen. Santorum's rhetoric is currently underway, and the first numbers are somewhat peculiar, especially since his overview pages (see "Current Issues" summaries) say so little.  I'll have to rebuild the data based on the featured public statement links on each of these pages to get a clearer image.  Stand by for those results in the next few days.

Hillary Clinton
When I first considered analyzing Sen. Clinton, I was under the impression that her overall position was generally egalitarian, since this is how she is most often portrayed by allies and opponents alike.  When I submitted her Issues pages and her 109th Congress sponsorship record to the LEO test, however, a much more perplexing picture emerged.

Perhaps it is safe to say that Sen. Clinton is nothing if not strident in her expressed opinions.  Where those opinions fall in ideological space, however, is another matter entirely.  Like most political actors, a variety of positions will be indicated, but the aggregate or the adjusted proportion of those preferences should yield a clearer picture of the Senator's overall ideological signature. 

A disparity appears between Sen. Clinton's stated positions on the Issues pages of her Senate webpage and her sponsorship record for the 109th Congress.  The exact nature of this disparity I am still exploring, but it is nevertheless observable.  See below (Click to Enlarge):

Raw scores:

I do apologize for the sheer number of bar graphs in the above chart, but it is instructive to note that Sen. Clinton's rhetoric appears to vary widely from one issue to the next.  I also neglected to insert the raw scores for the 109th Congress (1st Session) because its totals are much higher than the signatures on her webpage, and would frustrate the overall legibility of the chart, which I must admit is difficult enough as it is.  The adjusted scores appear in the chart below, which does include the 109th Congress figures (Click to Enlarge):

Percentages:

All of the above data was collected by logging to the Senator's website and the Thomas server. On her website, text from the issue summary pages were copied and pasted into separate text files and analyzed with the test table I have used before.  From the Thomas server, a sample of Sen. Clinton's sponsorship record was collected by searching for bills and resolutions in the 109th Congress bearing her name either as Sponsor or co-sponsor. The text of the first fifty bills were copied and pasted into a single text file to represent her overall sponsorship record for the 109th Congress, and analyzed using the same test table as witht he Senator's issue pages.

One can see from the adjusted scores that Sen. Clinton has relatively few moderate positions.  On some issues, she has taken a strong egalitarian position: "Housing", "Health Care", "Immigration", "Education", and "Women".  Yet other issues reveal strong establishmentarian (usually conservative) positions: "Foreign Policy", "Veterans", the "Environment", "Civil Rights & Liberties", "Homeland Security", "Agriculture", "Families", "Social Security", and "Public Safety".  In fact, it appears at first glance as if Sen. Clinton has no center, and seeks instead to offset a tendency towards extremism of one kind on one issue with extremism of a different kind on another issue, in the hope of balancing them out to offer the appearance of 'centrism'.

However, those issues with the highest rhetorical volume may be more revealing about Senator Clinton's ideological preference.  The stances expressed on her webpage are loudest in the areas of Housing (78%"E"), Health Care (44% "E"), Immigration (64% "E"), Education (70% "E"), Agriculture (61%"O"), Women (76% "E"), and Social Security (68% "O").  Based on these issues alone, Sen. Clinton might be labeled either a hard-line or extreme egalitarian.

In terms of ideological indicators, she is quietest on matters of Civil Rights & Liberties (100% "O"), Election Reform (71% "E"), the Economy (50% "L"), Families (50% "O"), and Public Safety (83% "O").  Given her previous statements as First Lady regarding families, perhaps the issues where Sen. Clinton is quietest are in fact those which merit the closest scrutiny.

On average, Sen. Clinton's issues pages indicate a position Steven Kautz described in Liberalism and Community  as "communitarian,"  where equality and order are of principal importance, while liberty is afforded little attention (The proportion of references to liberty in this sample is less than 11%).  If these measurements are accurate, they indicate a preference on this Senator's part for a strong regulatory state meant to enforce a kind of equality acceptable to the community as a whole, and if any pillar of American politics is to be left behind, it is liberty.

Now to the disparity. Sen. Clinton's Senate sponsorship appears different from her issue pages.  According to the first measure, the bills and resolutions in the sample carried with them an overall moderate conservative ideological signature.  Now this is certainly within the scope of a communitarian, since communitarians typically maintain a roughly equal preference for liberal and conservative rhetoric, without actually being centrists.  Yet what is peculiar is that Sen. Clinton's sponsorship carries a much higher proportion of libertarian indicators than her issues pages--just under 30%.

A likely reason for this disparity lies in the basic character of the Republican majority in the Senate.  Since the Republicans still represent a coalition of conservatives and moderate libertarians, minor concessions on Sen. Clinton's part may skew her overall sponsorship in a direction less unfavorable to the majority party.  If this be so, and I can find a way to control for the ideological influence of the majority for all bills, then a clearer picture may emerge.  That will take some time.

Comments

[Mark Zuniga]

I suspect you will spend a lot of time over the next few years analyzing Hillary Clinton. It appears conservatives and liberals alike have an incorrect impression of her politics. c.f. http://www.slate.com/id/2123636/

[jonathon]

Sounds like Slate touched on some of the same stuff I found and posted today. Just look at those Foreign Policy figures!

[jonathon]

However, I get the impression that Slate got it wrong. Her Senate page suggests she's no centrist, but she's clearly trying to pass herself off as one. As a result, she looks like she can't decide what kind of statism to adopt. No wonder she has a "likability" problem.

[Kevin]

Now, Jonathon, I am just a simple minded physical chemist but could the weirdness come from the fact she a damned liar and will say anything if it serves her purpose? As well as a power hungry thugette?

[jonathon]

I'm not sure that the wide swings in HR Clinton's signature can be dimissed due to dishonesty; that's not the purpose of this inquiry. What it does suggest, however, is that Clinton is certainly no centrist, despite the insistence of the press. Just because one does not have a consistent single-axis ideological signature under this model does not necessarily mean that person is misrepresenting his or her position. However, one thing is clear. If these figures are accurate, and the formulae suggested by a closed 3-space or 3d-space are correct, where any single preference for one set of ideological indicators over the other two by at least 2/3 indicates a radical or extremist, then HR Clinton's stated position should make any centrist or moderate wary. On one issue she sounds like a socalist, on the next a fascist. Not a single issue on her page indicates a moderate position of any kind. The most moderate she ever gets on her page is when she sounds like a mere ideologue.

Call her a liar if you wish, but if I'm reading these figures right, she is actually more disturbing if she's not.

[James]

I might offer a more cynical explanation of Senator Clinton's positions: her rhetoric reflects the biases of the principal constituents of the issue at hand:

1. Housing, immigrant's rights, education, women's rights are all strong egalitarian constituencies.

2. Foreign affairs, Vets, environmentalists, civil rights, security, agribusiness, family folks, social security & public safety all have conservative constituencies. (Environmentalists don't give a hoot about egalitarianism: they don't care who they screw out of a job so long as the trees are healthy.) (Retirees don't care about egalitarianism either: they don't care how what the tax rates are so long as the checks keep coming.) (Civil rights without an attached victim class really means law & order.)

3. The Economy in general: a total crap shoot depending on whether you're talking to the enfranchised, disenfranchised, or aspirants.

[JimDesu]

(oops, I forgot there's another James about: that was me the lemur guy)

[Mark Zuniga]

I fail to see how calling a Senator a liar and a thug is valid in a discussion that is mostly scholarly and analytical in nature.
I think Hillary is loved or hated for what she represents, not who she is or what she believes. I also think that Jonathon is on to something when he says that she appears to try to moderate some positions of hers by taking other extreme positions, not by moderation itself. Jonathon's analysis is, obviously, quantitative in nature, and, while valid, I would be interested in a more qualitative review.
She is also such a boring speaker that I can't imagine her doing well in the primary.

[jonathon]

Mark,
About your concern re: ad hominem statements, I couldn't agree more. This inquiry is after all centered upon an analysis of specific observable records rather than a forum for spirited punditry.

I have generally found difficulty either supporting or opposing any politician whose words I have just heard or read, largely because I am aware of the effect of rhetorical appeals, especially along the lines of pathos. This is perhaps one of the reasons for the present inquiry. Because I cannot trust my own opinion after having heard a well-crafted speech, I must instead look to what claim or argument is actually made in that speech, as well as to describe what preferences are indicated by that speech. The bottom line is that these positions are not always intuitively clear, and a systematic approach is therefore required.

I can honestly say that I have never actually heard a single speech delivered by Sen. Clinton, and so I must resort to other sources. The closest I can get to Clinton herself is to look at her written public statements, either on her official wabpage or the text of Seante proposals to which she attached her name. The data from her website indicate multiple extremist positions, which I personally find disturbing, for it suggests that Sen. Clinton is generally unwilling to compromise on a great many issues. However, I may be mistaken, especially considering her more moderate sponsorship record in the 109th Congress.

I'll have to look back to previous Congresses, but at this stage it looks like Sen. Clinton would be well-advised, if she seeks electoral success, to focus on her Senate sponsorship record and little else. As soon as she brings up anything other than that, she'll likely turn away would-be voters on all sides.

[JimDesu]

Kevin: http://folk.uio.no/larstw/LarsonFools.gif

[jonathon]

James,
I assumed it was you. The other James typically signs off as "JB."
Although a cynical assessment to be sure, your interpretation of these data may in fact bear out. I haven't tested her husband, but I do recall that he was roundly criticized during his first term for attempting to appear to be "all things to all people". Maybe that's what we're looking at with HR Clinton. Mark observed that she is apparently a pretty dull speaker, and that is reasonable. Since her stated positions generally orbit the center from an extreme distance, she does not wish to call attention to those extreme positions by keeping people at the edge of their seats when she speaks. In this respect, I'm actually reminded in some ways of Michael Peroutka, whose extreme establishmentarianism remained under the radar because he was simply so very quiet. I am reminded even more of Dick Cheney's RNC speech last year, for his was ideological volume was far and away the highest of all the speakers I tested. Nevertheless, his specch was delivered in a calm, almost unassuming manner.

[eowyn]

Oddly enough, on the Op-Ed page of this morning's San Francisco Chronicle is a cynical little column entitled "Hillary's Metamorphosis" about how Hillary is trying to recast herself in a more populist light.
Funny that you should mention Pres. Clinton's "all things to all people" difficulty, Jonathon, because while on one hand the columnist is accusing her of that very same failing, he turns around and says that the one thing that may help her in this endeavor is the fact that "she is being advised by one of the most astute political triangulators in American history - her husband."
I'm gonna leave that one alone. Y'all can make of it what you will.

[jonathon]

I always have to wonder what exactly is meant by "populism": Maybe that's what Jim was just talking about above, and if so, it just might explain the strange numbers I've been getting from Hillary Clinton. The way she going now, she has no center.

[Jeremy]

Maybe it's just this computer, but your hillary result pics aren't working.

[jonathon]

I was still able to bring them up, but to be on the safe side I also included a link to a separate snapshot. I've been futzing around with the dimensions of the Hillary charts; they keep coming up a little too small. I hope this helps.

[Nortius Maximus]

Factoring out the more pejorative aspects of Kevin's post, it's still a reasonable question to ask if your methodology could distinguish a panderer from someone principled. Given how long we've labored under the Procrustean Left/Right rubrics, theLEOtest, though it seems a significant advance over both the L/R scale and the Nolan chart, is unlikely to be the final word on the subject, wouldn't you agree?

One could indeed imagine someone who is, shall we say, a la carte principled, and that might be what Hillary is, but my question stands.

Jonathan, I really appreciate the work that you're undertaking. Thanks.

[eowyn]

I checked my copy of Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary" for Populist, as some of his definitions are still very funny one hundred years later; for example, "Representative", which Bierce defines as "a member of the Lower House in this world, and without discernable hope of promotion in the next". His definition for Populist, however, seems to rely heavily on the humor of the day, and I can't quite make it out. So, I will attempt a Devil's Dictionary definition for Populist as Bierce might have written it had he been alive today:
"An ivy-league educated liberal politician whose fears about the election grow in direct proportion to his wealth; a chameleon by nature, he will be observed wearing a plaid shirt in Maine, going ice-fishing in Wisconsin, and walking through a cornfield in blue jeans and a mesh baseball cap in Kansas; one who will always remember to say y'all and ma'am in Texas. At rallies and stump speeches, he always endeavours to have his tie off and his sleeves rolled up."

[eowyn]

Alternate definition: "One who has been told that safety lies in being perceived as a Centrist, but takes this to mean he must focus his attentions on the states at the geographical center of the country."

[jonathon]

Nortius,
Certainly the LEO Test as it currently stands is unlikely to be the final word on the matter. You correctly point out a basic difficulty with using consciously stated opinions as the basis for a sample. For this reason it is vital to collect data both from the stated opinions from political actors (such as Sen. Clinton's webpage) as well as from other less overt statements, such as a sponsorship record. This was done by searching through the actual text of bills to which the Senator was willing to attch her name. Interestingly, Clinton's sponsorhip record comes out more moderate than her page, but again, this result might be a function of deal-making before bills hit the hopper.
Indeed, while we cannot directly look into anyone's mind or soul but our own, there will always appear a measure of uncertainty. However, as with previous measures, one may compare one's actions with one's words to get at least the barest glimpse. I do have an inventory that measures individual ideological preference within the LEO model, and it is about as direct an observation as I can get. It follows a methodology similar to a personality profile based on word association. however, since Sen. Clinton has not taken this inventory, I cannot compare it with her actions or her statements. At this time I'll have to settle for only two parts of the three-fold measure.

Thanks for the comments! This is a long-term project, and the difficulties must be identified in order for it to work.