Economic, social, and foreign policy congressional conservatism by state, 2008

++Addition++Blogger Sully compares stimulus jobs created to congressional conservatism and finds that conservative states appear to be faring better than liberal states are. I find it exceedingly difficult to have any faith in our political leaders.

---

Razib's post at Secular Right looking at the relationship between economic and social liberalism made me wonder how the states rank in terms of the legislative activity of the Congressional delegations they send. Each year, National Journal rates each representative based on his voting behavior over the course of preceding congressional legislative sessions throughout the previous year. Votes are separated into three major categories (economic, social, and foreign policy) and representatives are assigned (nearly, but not entirely, inverse) liberal and conservative scores based on the totality of their voting behavior in each category.

The following tables rank states by conservatism, calculated by taking each representative's conservative score (on a 0-100 scale, with higher values indicating stronger conservatism) and subtracting from it his liberal score (displayed in the same way), and then averaging these scores among all members from a state to arrive at the state's index*.

Underestimating the importance of partisanship, I originally hoped to do more with the data than I've ended up doing. All the same, here they are, perhaps to be utilized by someone more perspicacious than I am. Economic conservatism, by state:

State	Economic con
1. Wyoming	88.0
2. Idaho	67.0
3. Nebraska	57.3
3. Utah	57.3
5. Oklahoma	51.6
6. Montana	42.0
7. Texas	34.5
8. Louisiana	34.3
9. Alabama	32.6
10. New Mexico	28.7
11. Kentucky	26.0
12. Colorado	25.9
13. Alaska	22.0
14. South Carolina	21.7
15. Virginia	19.7
16. Georgia	19.5
17. Arizona	17.6
18. Kansas	17.3
19. Tennessee	16.2
20. Indiana	14.0
21. Iowa	13.0
22. Ohio	12.3
23. Florida	11.2
24. Missouri	10.3
25. Delaware	10.0
26. Arkansas	8.0
27. Nevada	7.0
28. South Dakota	5.0
29. North Carolina	1.5
30. Michigan	(7.3)
31. Washington	(7.7)
32. Pennsylvania	(9.7)
33. Minnesota	(10.3)
34. New Jersey	(10.5)
35. Wisconsin	(11.8)
36. California	(12.4)
37. West Virginia	(15.0)
38. Illinois	(16.0)
38. North Dakota	(16.0)
40. Mississippi	(22.0)
41. Oregon	(30.0)
42. Maine	(35.5)
42. New Hampshire	(35.5)
44. New York	(42.0)
45. Connecticut	(43.4)
46. Maryland	(45.1)
47. Vermont	(52.0)
48. Rhode Island	(62.0)
49. Massachusetts	(76.1)
50. Hawaii	(85.0)

Social conservatism, by state:

State	Social con
1. Wyoming	68.0
2. Idaho	61.5
3. Utah	55.3
4. Nebraska	43.3
5. Alabama	39.3
6. Oklahoma	34.6
7. Kentucky	31.8
8. Georgia	31.8
9. South Carolina	31.5
10. Montana	31.0
11. Virginia	30.6
12. New Mexico	25.0
13. Texas	23.8
14. Alaska	20.0
15. Tennessee	18.0
16. Arizona	17.0
17. Florida	16.0
18. Louisiana	15.6
19. Indiana	13.9
20. Ohio	12.4
21. North Carolina	12.0
22. Colorado	11.9
23. Delaware	9.0
24. Nevada	3.0
25. Michigan	2.9
26. Missouri	0.8
27. Kansas	(0.3)
28. Iowa	(4.6)
29. Pennsylvania	(5.6)
30. Wisconsin	(7.3)
31. New Jersey	(9.4)
32. Mississippi	(10.5)
33. Minnesota	(11.0)
34. South Dakota	(12.0)
35. West Virginia	(12.7)
36. Arkansas	(12.8)
37. New Hampshire	(13.0)
38. Illinois	(13.3)
39. California	(13.8)
40. Maine	(21.0)
40. Vermont	(21.0)
42. Washington	(25.0)
43. North Dakota	(28.0)
44. New York	(31.1)
45. Oregon	(36.8)
46. Maryland	(42.4)
47. Connecticut	(56.2)
48. Hawaii	(64.0)
49. Rhode Island	(69.5)
50. Massachusetts	(71.1)

Conservatism in foreign policy (phrasing it this way seems Orwellian, since 'conservative' foreign policy in the US tends toward assertiveness and interventionism, while 'liberal' foreign policy trends in the opposite direction):

State	FP con
1. Wyoming	76.0
2. Idaho	66.5
3. Oklahoma	60.4
4. Utah	58.7
5. Nebraska	46.0
6. Alaska	38.0
7. Alabama	34.9
8. Texas	34.8
9. Georgia	31.4
10. Montana	31.0
11. Nevada	30.0
12. Kentucky	29.7
13. Louisiana	29.3
14. Virginia	25.7
15. New Mexico	24.7
16. South Carolina	24.2
17. Florida	19.4
18. Colorado	16.9
19. Ohio	16.8
20. Kansas	16.5
21. Arizona	14.9
22. Indiana	13.6
23. Tennessee	11.6
24. Delaware	9.0
25. Missouri	7.8
26. Michigan	2.7
27. Mississippi	1.3
28. Arkansas	0.3
29. Pennsylvania	(0.7)
30. North Carolina	(1.5)
31. South Dakota	(2.0)
32. Washington	(6.8)
33. Illinois	(10.1)
34. Minnesota	(15.3)
35. California	(17.4)
36. New Jersey	(24.2)
37. West Virginia	(26.3)
38. Wisconsin	(26.5)
39. North Dakota	(27.0)
40. Rhode Island	(30.5)
41. Iowa	(32.0)
42. Connecticut	(38.4)
43. New York	(38.7)
44. Maryland	(40.8)
45. New Hampshire	(53.0)
46. Oregon	(53.6)
47. Hawaii	(61.0)
48. Maine	(62.5)
49. Massachusetts	(76.7)
50. Vermont	(77.0)

To keep the above from becoming frustratingly disparate, the following table orders states by overall congressional conservatism, arrived at by averaging the three categories while also showing each state's respective rankings by category:

State	Overall	Econ rank	Social rank	FP rank
1. Wyoming	77.3	1	1	1
2. Idaho	64.8	2	2	2
3. Utah	57.0	3	3	4
4. Oklahoma	48.9	5	6	3
4. Nebraska	48.9	3	4	5
6. Alabama	35.6	9	5	7
7. Montana	34.7	6	10	10
8. Texas	31.0	7	13	8
9. Kentucky	29.2	11	7	12
10. Georgia	27.6	16	8	9
11. Alaska	26.7	13	14	6
12. Louisiana	26.4	8	18	13
13. New Mexico	26.1	10	12	15
14. South Carolina	25.8	14	9	16
15. Virginia	25.3	15	11	14
16. Colorado	18.2	12	22	18
17. Arizona	16.5	17	16	21
18. Florida	15.5	23	17	17
19. Tennessee	15.3	19	15	23
20. Indiana	13.8	20	19	22
20. Ohio	13.8	22	20	19
22. Nevada	13.3	27	24	11
23. Kansas	11.2	18	27	20
24. Delaware	9.3	25	23	24
25. Missouri	6.3	24	26	25
26. North Carolina	4.0	29	21	30
27. Michigan	(0.6)	30	25	26
28. Arkansas	(1.5)	26	36	28
29. South Dakota	(3.0)	28	34	31
30. Pennsylvania	(5.3)	32	29	29
31. Iowa	(7.9)	21	28	41
32. Mississippi	(10.4)	40	32	27
33. Minnesota	(12.2)	33	33	34
34. Illinois	(13.1)	38	38	33
35. Washington	(13.2)	31	42	32
36. California	(14.5)	36	39	35
37. New Jersey	(14.7)	34	31	36
38. Wisconsin	(15.2)	35	30	38
39. West Virginia	(18.0)	37	35	37
40. North Dakota	(23.7)	38	43	39
41. New Hampshire	(33.8)	42	37	45
42. New York	(37.3)	44	44	43
43. Maine	(39.7)	42	40	48
44. Oregon	(40.1)	41	45	46
45. Maryland	(42.8)	46	46	44
46. Connecticut	(46.0)	45	47	42
47. Vermont	(50.0)	47	40	50
48. Rhode Island	(54.0)	48	49	40
49. Hawaii	(70.0)	50	48	47
50. Massachusetts	(74.6)	49	50	49

About what you'd expect, with a few exceptions. New Mexico's delegation is quite conservative, while Mississippi's is pretty leftist, as is North Dakota's Earl Pomeroy, relative to his state's uninterrupted support for Republican presidential candidates extending all the way back to Richard Nixon's election in 1968.

It is important to realize that the enormous inherent advantages of incumbency can make representation appear to be arbitrary from this nationwide vantage point. Why was Wyoming's representative, the now-retired Barbara Cubin, so stridently conservative, while North Dakota's Earl Pomeroy is a moderate Democrat? Wyoming did replace Utah as the reddest state in '08, but the Presidential and political gaps--exit polls indicate 39% of Wyoming voters consider themselves conservative and 14% liberal to North Dakota's 36% and 16%, respectively--are not nearly as wide as the chasm between the their respective Congressional representatives are. The same sort of contrast is apparent on the left end by looking at Delaware's Michael Castle, a centrist Republican, and Rhode Island's Patrick Kennedy and James Langevin, both of whom are reliably leftist Democrats.

The question is meant to be rhetorical. I don't have an answer, other than point out that Wyoming's Cubin had been in office since the Republican revolution of '94, the same year Ted Kennedy's son Patrick took office in Rhode Island, Pomeroy and Castle were first elected to Congress in '92, and Langevin, at age 45, has been in his spot for five consecutive terms. Especially when a representative is opposite the center of his constituency, the longer he stays, the easier it becomes to keep staying. There are a combination of reasons for this, including voter appreciation of pork brought in from the federal level to the district feeding trough, name recognition and its conseqeunt media advantages, and financial backing from the party's national committee.

As the House putatively exists to enact legislation at the federal level, the charge that North Dakotans are being poorly served relative to Wyomingites ignores the fact that it is the nationwide aggregate that is ultimately important from the political perspective of voters. State and local governments matter more than Congressional representatives do in the way residents go about their daily lives. Their congressional representatives mostly matter to the extent they are able to win stuff through the spoils system. With the odd exception of a Ron Paul, the vast majority of congress critters are making concerted efforts to bring home the federal bacon, whether they be on the left or the right.

Despite apparent randomness in some solidly red (blue) states fielding conservative (liberal) congressional delegations while others send center-left (-right) groups, for the most part voters get what they want. The correlations between McCain's support and economic, social, and foreign policy congressional conservatism are .80, .75, and .77, respectively. These are hardly distinguishable from the correlations between the percentage of a state's voters who consider themselves liberal subtracted from the percentage who self-describe as conservative, and congressional conservatism, which are .77, .73, and .89, respectively.

Bruce Charlton recently published an editorial in Medical Hypotheses examining the personality attributes accompanying high IQ, "including the trait of ‘Openness to experience’, ‘enlightened’ or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism." Does this hold at the state level in the US? IQ estimates derived from NAEP testing and National Journal data referenced above suggests it does. The correlations between a state's average IQ and economic, social, and foreign policy conservatism are -.09, -.14, and -.28, respectively. The relationship with foreign policy is the only one to reach significance at the 95% confidence level, giving the ordering face validity. Knowing nothing else about them, if one guy tells you he is fiscally conservative but opposes nation-building, you're likely to assume he is more intelligent than the other guy who tells you he supports strong military action overseas but thinks the federal government needs to do more to help people at home. This pattern emerges at the state level as well.

* Eight representatives were present for fewer than half of roll calls in at least one of the three categories during 2008. Their behavior is estimated by averaging the votes of the rest of the representatives in their state who share their party affiliation. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio's 11th district died last August and was not replaced until November by Marcia Fudge. Consequently, only Tubbs-Jones votes are used to determine Ohio's political composition.