On the Wrongness of Polls

November 5, 2020 By Gene Veith

Pre-election polls showed Joe Biden beating Donald Trump by an average of 10 points. Polls also showed Biden with a comfortable lead in virtually all of the battleground states. These included a 17 point lead in Wisconsin (now too close to call), a 5 point lead in Florida (which Trump won by 3.4 points), and a 4 point lead in Ohio (which Trump won by 8.1 points).

So pollsters and pundits were predicting a Biden landslide, a “blue wave” that would cleanse the nation. But that didn’t happen. However this election turns out, we know that the polls were, once again as they were in 2016, spectacularly wrong.

THE POLLING INDUSTRY is a wreck, and should be blown up.”

What happened? One explanation being offered is the “shy” Trump voter, the notion that people are embarrassed to admit to a pollster that they support the widely demonized president, lest they feel like a social pariah.

I think the problem goes deeper than that. After all, the polls have also been wrong in missing conservative victories in other races, such as Brexit in the UK and the parliamentary elections in Australia.

I think survey results should include statistical data on the number of people who “declined to respond.”

I almost never respond to opinion polls of any kind. Do you? I don’t want to spend my precious time–“it won’t take more than 15 minutes”–being interrogated about my personal views by a stranger.

I wonder how many potential subjects just refuse to participate in the polls and if there is a correlation with conservative positions.

Actually, I used to participate in polls, thinking that my views might thereby be influential in the public square. But the options given to me to choose from were seldom adequate to capture my positions. When given four choices, or “agree” or “disagree,” it’s almost impossible to express complicated or nuanced opinions. As for “how do you feel on a scale of one to ten,” my answers were almost always arbitrary, not really comparable to other subjects performing the same exercise, and thus not reliable at all.

And yet, though I almost never agree to take part in polls anymore, I did do an exit poll on Tuesday! I had never been asked before, so I was kind of intrigued, wanting to see what it is like and to be involved in helping the media call a race. I wasn’t much help. I have a strong commitment to the secret ballot, so I never tell anyone how I vote. But there were lots of other questions. Again, the options didn’t fit with my thinking. I was asked, “which issue is the most important to you?,” COVID-19, the economy, or health or safety? Opposition to abortion was not a choice. Nor was “moral breakdown” or “cultural collapse” or “opposition to postmodernism.”

The unreliability of polls has implications far beyond politics. It calls into question the entire field of the social sciences, which rely to a large degree on survey instruments and polling. Already these disciplines are facing a crisis because it turns out so few of these studies are reproducible. Different researchers get different results when they do the same experiment, which would indicate that human studies are not in accord with the scientific method. Indeed, human beings–unlike inert chemicals and non-rational organisms–are not going to be predictably consistent or capable of being quantified. This is because human beings, unlike other things scientists study, have agency. It is becoming increasingly evident that the social sciences are not sciences at all.

I myself consult polling results and often blog about what a “study finds.” When trying to understand cultural trends or how people view things, there is no other option than to try to find out what people say. I think there can still be a use for these things, but now I wonder. Perhaps researchers can refine their methods or somehow make their findings more reliable. But I suspect there will always be major limitations to this kind of data, since human beings can change their minds and violate expectations.

Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

Premium Content

Something Americans Can Agree On: Hating Modern Architecture

October 21, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Americans are bitterly polarized politically, socially, economically, culturally, generationally, religiously. . . .And yet, a study has found something that Americans of all perspectives can agree on: architecture. Specifically, disliking modern architecture and preferring traditional architecture.

Evita Duffy of The Federalist has written an article entitled Nearly Three-Quarters Of Americans Are Sick Of Modern Architecture, with the deck “Since the overwhelming majority of Americans have proven time and time again that they prefer traditional architecture, why do government agencies force ugly buildings on the American people?”

She is reporting on the results of a Harris poll commissioned by the National Civic Art Society. It was prompted by a proposed executive order from the Trump administration that would require federal buildings follow the tenets of “classical” architecture, which the order defines as including a variety of traditional styles (Gothic, Romanesque, Spanish, Mediterranean, etc.). This would reverse a 1962 order from the Kennedy administration favoring modernist styles, which would come to include Brutalism, which employs unadorned concrete and a purposefully dehumanizing scale without any ornamentation.

The architectural profession and the arts establishment has reacted to the proposed executive order with outrage and indignation. The Harris study asked over 2,000 American citizens which style they preferred. Researchers showed the subjects a series of photos of governmental buildings (courthouses, office buildings, post offices, etc.) and asked which ones they liked and which ones they didn’t.

The results were remarkable, not only in its final tally, showing that 72% of Americans preferred the traditional styles. But in the degree of consensus found across all groups.

Here are findings from the final report, Americans’ Preferred Architecture for Federal Buildings:

Overall, 72% of Americans prefer traditional architecture, and 28% prefer modernist architecture.

By political party, 73% of Republicans, 70% of Democrats, and 73% of Independents prefer traditional architecture.

By sex, 67% of men and 77% of women prefer traditional architecture.

By age, 68% of 18-34 year-olds, 65% of 35-44, 75% of 45-54, 78% of 55-64, and 77% of 65+ prefer traditional architecture.

By race, 75% of Whites, 62% of Blacks, and 65% of Hispanics prefer traditional architecture.

By region, 73% of Americans living in the Northeast, 73% in the South, 74% in the Midwest, and 69% in the West prefer traditional architecture.

By income, 73% of Americans making less than $50K per year, 74% of those making $50-$74.9, 73% of those making $75-$99.9K, and 70% of those making $100K+ prefer traditional architecture.

By education, 72% of Americans with a high school education or less, 73% with some college, and 72% of college graduates or higher prefer traditional architecture.

So around two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans from all demographics surveyed prefer traditional architecture for their government buildings. That sounds like confirmation of the classical principle of there being a universal, common humanity.

Classical aesthetic principles of harmony, symmetry, proportion, and a human scale can be applied, as was said, in a wide variety of different styles. They can even be applied in contemporary styles to make them more appealing.

But the connection to government buildings is especially telling. The features of classical architecture–evident, for example, in the explicit neo-classicism of the U. S. Capitol, the Lincoln Monument, and the National Archives–derive from and express the values of the Greek Democracies and the Roman Republic. Such buildings may be grand, but citizens who walk inside feel affirmed, a part of an order larger than themselves, but one in which they are full participants. The decorative details and the overall aesthetic impact express the truth that the government that built this structure is obliged to please me, the ordinary citizen, rather than the other way around.

That is the message of the Brutalist public buildings, such as the FBI headquarters or the Hubert H. Humphrey office building in Washington, D.C. Brutalism makes the citizen feel small, even crushed by the massive scale, the heavy slabs of concrete and steel, and the depersonalized feel of the place, which has eliminated all ornamentation and aesthetic considerations. The citizen must serve the government, rather than the other way around. The modernist buildings are also confusing to the citizen, who doesn’t understand the design and finds it disorienting. This too is expressive of modern government, conveying the notion that citizens do not have sufficient knowledge and so must defer to the experts.

Photo: Hubert H. Humphrey Office Building [Department of Health & Human Services, Washington, D.C.] by Sarah Stierch, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content

Sexualizing the new Tolkien TV Series

October 12, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

As we blogged about at Tolkien the Television Series, Amazon Prime is making a new streaming series based on J. R. R. Tolkien’s epic fantasies.

It will depict the “Second Age,” drawing on material from the Silmarillion, and will serve as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings movies.

Amazon has gone all out for the project, paying $250 million to the Tolkien estate for the film rights and setting a budget of $1 billion, making it the most expensive television project in history. So expectations are high.

But TheOneRing fan site is reporting that the casting call for extras in the production includes the requirement that they “must be comfortable with nudity.”

So we aren’t just talking about nude scenes from the principle actors, which would be bad enough, but also nude scenes from the extras. That is to say, nudity on a massive scale.

Furthermore, Amazon Studios has hired an Intimacy Coordinator for the production. That job description involves choreographing sex scenes, while ensuring that they do not violate #MeToo concerns.

This makes it sound like Amazon Studios is planning a series similar to HBO’s sex-saturated fantasy Game of Thrones.

Tolkien, of course, would never allow this. He was a devout Catholic Christian who opposed the sexualization of literature and who took care that his own writing would be, in his words, “‘high’, purged of the gross.”

Read the article about this as TheOneRing.Net: Sex & Sensibility: Amazon’s Nude Take On Tolkien.

For more takes on this, read Evita Duffy’s piece in The Federalist, The Left Can’t Stand Tolkien’s Christian-Influenced ‘Lord Of The Rings,’ So Amazon Is Giving It A ‘Game Of Thrones’ Makeover.

And, to illustrate her point, the New York Magazine has published a rather snarky column (reader discretion advised) expressing the view that sexualizing Tolkien’s fantasy is a great idea.

For more on the project, whose first episodes are still scheduled to be released in 2021, go here.

Image by Pau Llopart Cervello from Pixabay

Premium Content

How the Constitution Resolves a Chaotic Election

September 29, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Compounding the unique difficulties of this 2020 election, which we blogged about, both sides are already claiming that if they lose, the election will be illegitimate.

Republicans are saying that the huge increase of mail-in ballots, most of which according to polls will be for Biden, is an invitation to fraud, especially in states that are sending out the ballots as mass mailings to all voters. In reporting on these fears, the media always includes a statement that there is “no evidence” that mail in voting leads to fraud. But that just means that mail in voting on the proposed scale of this election has not happened yet. The issue should be the “possibility” of fraud.

Meanwhile, Democrats are saying that President Trump will, in effect, stage a coup, refusing to leave office even if he is defeated, using the military to keep himself in power.

This reads like another hysterical manifestation of Trump derangement syndrome, like the claim that Trump is a Russian agent or a fascist dictator.

Unfortunately, the president is playing into the hands of his enemies, speaking as if it is impossible for him to be defeated unless there is fraud, refusing to acknowledge that he will step down if he isn’t re-elected, and threatening to call out the military to enforce the Insurrection Act of 1807 to put down protests against him. His administration is also reportedly looking into the possibility of trying to get Republican-dominated state legislators to elect their own pro-Trump delegates to the Electoral College in the event their state votes for Biden and there are allegations of fraud. (For the details and quotations, read this.)

For those worried about a military coup in support of Trump, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is vowing that American armed forces will stay out of any political entanglements. Since their oath is to the Constitution rather than to their Commander-in-Chief, the likelihood is that they would disobey any orders to overturn the election. Nor would they dislodge the President from the White House if he refuses to leave. That would be the job of U.S. Marshals. (Read this for the deliberations going on in our military.)

These nightmare scenarios, of course, are unlikely to happen. And both sides are likely exaggerating them for political advantage. But the election results will almost certainly be delayed, due to late counting of mail-in votes, some of which will not even have to be received until after Election Day, November 3. And the voting results will almost certainly will face court challenges.

So what would happen then? This Associated Press story gives a useful and clarifying summary of how the Constitution and related federal law would resolve the possible electoral chaos.

First of all, there are deadlines. The Constitution mandates in the 20th Amendment that a president must be inaugurated on January 20 of the following year. All legal disputes must be resolved by that time.

Also, states have an entire month after Election Day to count the ballots and certify the results. So states must turn in their count by December 3. All disputes about the ballots, including any fraud allegations, must be resolved by that time.

If the election goes to the courts, those deadlines mean that the decisions, including the appeals, must be accelerated. If the disputes go to the Supreme Court, it must render a decision quickly. By the way, President Trump has said that he would abide by a Supreme Court decision if it declares Biden the winner.

If some states are unable to determine their electoral votes by December 3, it may happen that no candidate receives a majority. In that case, the 12th Amendment requires that the House of Representatives elect the President. In this election, that would seem to favor the Democrats. Except that the Amendment gives each state one vote, with each state’s congressional delegation voting on which candidate their state should vote for. Which ever candidate gets 26 votes, the majority of the 50 states, would be elected. That would seem to favor the Republicans. But some representatives would likely vote for the candidate their constituents chose, instead of following the party line, so the results are not really predictable.

The Senate would, by a straight up vote, elect the Vice President. So, yes, we might end up with a president and a vice president from two different parties. If the House can’t settle on a president, but the Senate with its more straight forward process elects a vice president, the vice president would, by the 20th Amendment, become acting president on Inauguration Day, and if the House can’t get its act together by March 4 would become the permanent president.

If, for whatever reason, none of this works, the 20th Amendment lets Congress determine the president, which would mean invoking the Presidential Succession Act. That would make the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the president.

All of this assumes, of course, that we follow our Constitution–with its brilliant provisions for balanced powers, protection of our liberties, and resolution of difficulties–instead of blowing it all up in a partisan power struggle that destroys our nation.

Image by Wynn Pointaux from Pixabay

Premium Content

The Spirituality of Everyday Life

September 7, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

In our efforts to Christianize “Labor Day” by turning it into a feast day celebrating the Doctrine of Vocation, I would like to offer you some recent reflections on why vocation is so important, how it can solve so many of the problems Christians are currently struggling with, and how it has the potential to revitalize contemporary Christianity.

This is from the introduction to the chapter on vocation that I wrote with Trevor Sutton in our book Authentic Christianity: How Lutheran Theology Speaks to a Post-Modern World:

The Reformation contributed three major teachings that would characterize Protestantism in all its diversity: justification by faith, the authority of Scripture, and the doctrine of vocation. The first two still have currency, despite recent criticisms. But the concept of vocation has been gradually lost. First it was turned into a “work ethic.” Then it turned into a pious attitude empty of specific content. Eventually it was reduced to just another synonym for “a job.”

Vocation was never meant to be just another word for “occupation.” Rather, it was originally about the Christian life that is fully integrated, meaningful, and teeming with purpose. Vocation was the locus for other important teachings, such as the priesthood of all believers, good works, and sanctification. It was not merely a theoretical teaching; rather, as taught in the early Reformation catechisms and sermons, the doctrine of vocation gave practical guidance to Christians in their marriages, parenthood, economic activity, and their role as citizens.

The doctrine of vocation shows Christians how to live out their faith in the world. It is about God’s presence in the world and how He works through human beings for His purposes. For Christians, vocation discloses the spirituality of everyday life.

Today Christians are greatly confused about how they should relate to the world. This is evident in the controversies about political involvement and cultural engagement. On the personal scale, champions of “family values” have a soaring divorce rate. Many Christians compartmentalize their lives, conforming to a consumerist and materialistic culture, while pursuing transcendent spiritual experiences that have little to do with their everyday lives. Christians today are variously—and sometimes simultaneously—waging culture wars, withdrawing from the world, and conforming to it.

The time is right to recover the doctrine of vocation. Doing so would revitalize contemporary Christianity and show Christians how once again they can be the world’s salt and light.

The chapter goes on with sections on “Vocation and the Bible,” “Luther on Vocation,” “The Christian’s Multiple Vocations” (including Luther’s important but oft-neglected doctrine of the Estates [the church, the household, the state, and the common order of Christian love], “The Importance of Vocation in the Christian Life,” “The Purpose of Vocation,” “The Priesthood and Its Sacrifices,” and “Vocation and Transfiguration.”

Those of you who have been interested in my writings on vocation–especially my books God at Work, Family Vocation (with Mary Moerbe), and Working for Our Neighbor–might also appreciate this new overview that can be found in Authentic Christianity.

You can buy the book–which also includes similar treatments of God, justification, the cross, the sacraments, the two kingdoms, and sanctification– here.

Illustration: “Happy Labor Day Cross Drawing,” Creative Commons, CC0 via Pixy.org

Premium Content

Forgiveness vs. Retribution

August 12, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

In today’s secular climate, there is no forgiveness. A transgression a person has done decades ago, even as a child, can be brought up to destroy that person’s reputation and career today. Despite any positive accomplishments or virtuous contributions to society, the sins of historical figures outweigh them and can never be atoned for. Politics is an exercise in putting the worst construction upon everything and getting back at one’s opponents in a tit-for-tat cycle of retribution.

Somehow, though, there needs to be a mechanism for dealing with transgressions. Punishment is one way, of course, and a convicted criminal who has served a sentence in prison was said to have “paid his debt to society” and offered a fresh start. Though I don’t know that released prisoners are given that fresh start today. And most violations fall short of being criminal, though that doesn’t prevent retaliatory attempts to criminalize them.

Christianity teaches that Christ atones for the sins of the world so that God forgives. That is the Gospel, the good news of salvation. Such forgiveness gives us access to the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of this world, though, is governed by the Law, with its demands for justice and its legal punishments. But can’t there be forgiveness in this world–in our personal relationships, our secular activities, and our political life–as well?

The Acton Institute’s Jordan Ballor and Hillsdale Classics Professor Eric Hutchinson have written a fascinating essay on this topic for Law & Liberty entitled Forgiveness as a Political Necessity.

It’s a wide-ranging discussion, drawing on the theme of forgiveness in the musical Hamilton (a wonderful play that you can now watch at Disney+) and in the Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen. I urge you to read it all, but I was most taken by the comments of the 20th century Jewish thinker Hannah Arendt, who has written perceptively about totalitarianism and political oppression. A sampling:

In The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt remarks that “the discoverer of the role of forgiveness in the realm of human affairs was Jesus of Nazareth.”. . .

Without forgiveness, we are left with an endless cycle of retribution that comes (and come it does) for everyone sooner or later.

By denying the past qua past, mere retribution destroys the present as well. Arendt puts it this way: “Without being forgiven, released from the consequences of what we have done, our capacity to act would, as it were, be confined to one single deed from which we could never recover; we would remain the victims of its consequences forever, not unlike the sorcerer’s apprentice who lacked the magic formula to break the spell.”

Arendt expands on this idea later. “Forgiveness,” she says, “is the exact opposite of vengeance.” Why? Because forgiving:

is the only reaction which does not merely re-act but acts anew and unexpectedly, unconditioned by the act which provoked it and therefore freeing from its consequences both the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven. The freedom contained in Jesus’ teachings of forgiveness is the freedom from vengeance, which incloses both doer and sufferer in the relentless automatism of the action process, which by itself need never come to an end.

Nothing is more purely reactionary than vengeance. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is the only reaction that is also a new action; it makes an end so that it can make a beginning. . . .

A society without forgiveness is like hell on earth. This is as true for societies on a smaller scale like marriage as it is for larger political communities. Marriages that last all have one thing in common: spouses that extend forgiveness to one another rather than withholding it. This kind of forgiveness is by no means the manifestation of a cheap grace. It is instead a grace, as Angelica Schuyler Hamilton describes it, “too powerful to name.” For Christians, forgiveness is only possible because of the costliest sacrifice imaginable.

I don’t think we can require forgiveness, as in the church that accepted back a philandering husband because he said he was sorry, while excommunicating the aggrieved wife because she would not forgive him. Forgiveness is always a free gift. So I’m not saying that the Black Lives Matter protesters should forgive the slave owners and racists. I’m just saying that the grace to forgive someone is a beautiful thing to behold and is the one way forward.

See Mark Tooley’s account, reflecting on this article, of the arch-segregationist George Wallace seeking and receiving forgiveness from the late Civil Rights activist John Lewis.

Image: “Forgive” by Diana de Weert from Pixabay

Premium Content