Sign up for The Media Today, CJRās daily newsletter.
Late last week, there was a fair bit of online chatter (see here, here, here, and here) about an unlikely subject: an academic paper thatās cluttered with terms like āBayesian heteroskedastic ideal point estimatorā and āstandard homoskedastic estimatorsā (and thatās just in the abstract). But for all that intimidating tech-speak, the paper (PDF), by Princeton Ph.D. candidate Benjamin Lauderdale, was engaged with a question thatās of recurring interest to the press: Just who are the most āmaverickā politicians? And what makes a politician a maverick, anyway?
The logic of Lauderdaleās approach is actually pretty straightforward. Members of Congress can be plotted, according to their votes, on a liberal-to-conservative scale. For most legislators on most issues, their position on that scale will predict their vote pretty well.
There is a subset of legislatorsāthose who are economically liberal and socially conservative, or vice versaāwho deviate from this pattern, and who sometimes get branded as āmavericksā in the press as a result. But Lauderdale notes that if you introduce a second axis, you can predict their votes pretty well too. (He also helpfully distinguishes between mavericks and moderates: a conservative Democrat or liberal Republican who occasionally votes with the other side still occupies a stable place on the liberal-conservative spectrum.) Instead, he introduces another way to identify mavericksāas the lawmakers whose votes donāt reflect any of the standard perspectives in electoral politics, or, as he puts it, who display āvoting driven by factors orthogonal to those that influence most legislators.ā
This is all conceptually interesting, but itās doubtful anyone outside the academy would have heard of it if John Sides of The Monkey Cage hadnāt used Lauderdaleās data to test the status of the best-known maverick of recent times, John McCain. The result has been making the rounds:
This is consistent with the qualitative account of McCainās trajectory, which is that he became somewhat mavericky after the GOP takeover of Congress in the mid-90s, got more conventional as he ran for president, found his maverick tendencies rejuvenated during his fit of pique after losing to George W. Bush (this is when the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which sealed his maverick status, was passed), and has been getting more orthodox ever since, to the point where heās more or less become a conventional Republican.
But Sides also did some other interesting stuff with the data, including building this graph of the most mavericky members of the 111th Senate (thatās the one in session now):
One of the notable results here is the predominance of Democrats at the top of the list (although Harry Reidās position is the result of tactical voting for procedural reasons). Another notable outcome: the absence of South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who, as CJR has previously noted, has repeatedly been tabbed as McCainās successor as D.C.ās Top Maverick.
Maybe thatās a small-sample size resultāweāre not even through the session, after all. How about the 110th Senate, for which Sides did not build a graph but did provide a top-10 list?
1. Feingold (D-WI)
2. Voinovich (R-OH)
3. Hagel (R-NE)
4. Reid (D-NV)
5. McCaskill (D-MO)
6. Byrd (D-WV)
7. Gregg (R-NH)
8. Kyl (R-AZ)
9. Coburn (R-OK)
10. Bayh (D-IN)
No Graham there, either. That was as far back as Sides went in his post, but over email, Lauderdale provided a little more information:
Graham has not really shown any maverick tendencies in his voting over the last three Congresses. He is reliably between the 10th and the 20th most conservative Senator, and he votes quite predictably as such. Perhaps if climate change or immigration legislation comes to the floor, we might start seeing something though.
So what does all this mean for press coverage of this subject? Well, itās another indication that, as Matthew Yglesias says in his post, in political discussion āa lot of terms get bandied about that lack rigorous definitions.ā Itās possible to argue for definitions of āmaverickā other than the one Lauderdale offers: thereās more to legislating than casting votes, after all, and Grahamās readiness to engage on issues like climate change has been genuinely significant. Still, his āmaverickā standing seems to have come as much from a media-friendly approach and a personal relationship with McCain as an actual record. Itās maverickiness by association.
Itās also a sign that the press loves a maverickāthey signify both unpredictability and a willingness to turn against regular allies, two things that make for great copyāand will create one of it has to, which, in an era of high partisan polarization and strict party discipline, it may. Grahamās maverick status, after all, is now imperiled because of a dispute over whether and when to bring climate change and immigration legislation forward, but as poor a maverick as he makes, there arenāt many good alternatives among the Republicans.
On the other hand, maybe thatās just as well. One of the all-time historical mavericks, according to Lauderdaleās methodology, was one William āWild Billā Langer, whose biography is titled, natch, The Dakota Maverick. Hereās how Lauderdale describes his career:
ā¦Langer (R-ND) had been removed from office as governor of North Dakota after a felony conviction for fraud in 1934, an episode that led to Langer (temporarily) declaring North Dakota independent of the U.S. and barricading himself in the state house with a group of armed supporters. His popularity resilient, Langer was re-elected Governor in the following election, and then elected to the Senate in 1940. Langer was sufficiently controversial that the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections recommended that Langer not be seated 13-3, but was overturned 52-30 by the full Senate. During his legislative career, Langer opposed Lend Lease, NATO, and the Marshall Plan. Unlike most Americans (senators included), Langer was no fan of Winston Churchill, āin 1951, when the former British Prime Minister visited the U.S. Langer sent a telegram to the pastor of Boston’s Old North Church requesting that two lanterns be placed in the belfry to warn Americans that the British were coming.”
Maybe the āMā word shouldnāt be used as a compliment, after all?
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.