Charles Doriean has written a new and topical paper with Scott Page seeking to measure the maverickyness of John McCain as a senator. They’ve asked me to publish it on Crooked Timber, but I figure that political scientists will be interested too. The PDF version is here and a Flash embedded version is below. In the authors’ description:
A maverick, … can be defined as someone who surprises us by voting against their party as often as they do, given their ideology. To determine whether a senator is a maverick (and how much of a maverick they are,) all we need to do is figure out how often we expect that senator to support their party, and then see how often they actually do support their party. The difference between the expectation and the reality can be called a “maverick measure.”
Under this definition, John McCain is very definitely a maverick. Indeed, he’s the seventh most mavericky Senator since 1877. However, he isn’t the most mavericky Senator in recent history; that honour goes to Lincoln Chafee, who comes in at number three. Also, McCain-ites who want to embrace this result should note that it is based on the same kind of measures of ideology (DW-Nominate scores) that have been used to show that Barack Obama, contra the National Journal and Republican mythology, is not (for better or worse) the most liberal Senator by a significant stretch.
Crossposted at Crooked Timber.
{ 3 comments }
I’m rather uncomfortable with the notion of using a measure of ideology derived from voting behavior to predict voting behavior and then using deviations in that behavior as a measure of a concept.
If the underlying definition of maverick involves being your own person, couldn’t a person be a maverick and find their ideas being adopted by their party? In essence, if we define a “maverick” as someone who votes contrary to their party, and say that an underlying ideological difference cannot explain it, then I would argue what is left is pure capriciousness. As near as I can tell (the authors just claim to “use” DW-NOMINATE scores in their predictions), the authors only used the first dimension of NOMINATE to make predictions. Well, of course Lincoln Chafee looks like a “maverick” in their models; it’s not that Lincoln Chafee didn’t have an underlying ideology, it’s just that his ideology syncs up with a GOP from 30+ years ago.
Can a maverick end up leading the herd? If so, will either the maverick or the herd, or both, go astray? If the herd is maverick-ized, then of what significance is the term maverick? If part of the herd fails to follow the maverick leader, should its members be considered as neomavericks?
While the true maverick does not bear a brand, can he turn into a brand by telling everyone constantly, over and over, that he is a maverick, e.g., hoist by his own petard? I’m thinking of Count Basie’s “Harvard Blues” and Jimmy Rushing singing “Reinhart, Reinhart” about a self-promoting nerd who was at least anonymous.
John McCain brands himself a maverick. Sarah Pallin calls herself a maverick. The resulting progeny?
In a sense, that’s one of the origins of parties–the labeling as similar those who might have similar opinions so as to create a “brand-name.” What use is the term “maverick” if the maverick leads the maverick faction? I would suggest its use is both nomenclatural (is that a word?) and marketing. McCain uses the term “maverick” because it has positive connotations for many (note that this is different from why someone might CALL him a maverick).
Of course, one wonders if the term SHOULD have positive connotations. Generally speaking, people think it means independently thinking. But independent from what? It’s often thought to be both party and ideology. So, in a very real sense, a true “maverick” would have no logically coherent set of beliefs. In the end, capriciousness guides the maverick. From a representation stand-point, a true maverick would be awful.
Comments on this entry are closed.