George Will’s latest column is about baseball. Will’s knowledge of and enthusiasm for our national pastime makes his occasional musings about this great game some of his most witty and entertaining work as a writer. A brilliant conservative political pundit and analyst, Will’s love of baseball and his ability to use its rules, norms, and history to both entertain and educate has always impressed me. I recommend his writings to readers of all political persuasions.
This latest column reminded me of a scholarly article I read a few years ago. You can read the full article at http://artsci.wustl.edu/~jgill/papers/qjps.zorngill.pdf. The article, written by political science professors Christopher Zorn and Jeff Gill, is called “The Etiology of Public Support for the Designated Hitter Rule.” The following is the abstract to the article:
Since its introduction in 1973, major league baseball’s designated hitter (DH) rule has been the subject of continuing controversy. Here, we investigate the political and socio–demographic determinants of public opinion toward the DH rule, using data from a nationwide poll conducted during September 1997. Our findings suggest that it is in fact Democrats, not Republicans, who tend to favor the DH. In addition, we find no effect for respondents’ proximity to American or National League teams, though older respondents were consistently more likely to oppose the rule.
I really enjoyed the article and have since recommended it to many. It’s a great example of how scientific methodology can be used in a fun and illuminating way. This piece allows for thoughtful discussion of both statistical methodology and American politics with a wide audience because of its subject matter. Exploring ways in which the DH rule manifests liberal values and attitudes about government, while opposition to this rule (government program?) is consistent with conservative values and attitudes, is a great way to sustain a pedagogically useful discussion of ideology in American politics.
For people who hate divisive political arguments, I recommend replacing whatever hot button issue is at hand with the DH rule. The argument may still be heated and intense, but because of the offbeat subject matter, I suspect that it may also be more creative and illuminating, as well as less acrimonious.
This latest column reminded me of a scholarly article I read a few years ago. You can read the full article at http://artsci.wustl.edu/~jgill/papers/qjps.zorngill.pdf. The article, written by political science professors Christopher Zorn and Jeff Gill, is called “The Etiology of Public Support for the Designated Hitter Rule.” The following is the abstract to the article:
Since its introduction in 1973, major league baseball’s designated hitter (DH) rule has been the subject of continuing controversy. Here, we investigate the political and socio–demographic determinants of public opinion toward the DH rule, using data from a nationwide poll conducted during September 1997. Our findings suggest that it is in fact Democrats, not Republicans, who tend to favor the DH. In addition, we find no effect for respondents’ proximity to American or National League teams, though older respondents were consistently more likely to oppose the rule.
I really enjoyed the article and have since recommended it to many. It’s a great example of how scientific methodology can be used in a fun and illuminating way. This piece allows for thoughtful discussion of both statistical methodology and American politics with a wide audience because of its subject matter. Exploring ways in which the DH rule manifests liberal values and attitudes about government, while opposition to this rule (government program?) is consistent with conservative values and attitudes, is a great way to sustain a pedagogically useful discussion of ideology in American politics.
For people who hate divisive political arguments, I recommend replacing whatever hot button issue is at hand with the DH rule. The argument may still be heated and intense, but because of the offbeat subject matter, I suspect that it may also be more creative and illuminating, as well as less acrimonious.
No comments:
Post a Comment