A basic value competition proposition is that useful political ideology cuts across the believer's other interests or preferences rather than consistently reinforcing them or consistently countering them. What follows is an application of that proposition as applied to certain aspects of my individual situation, which I'll relate to a center-right pro-market ideology and a center-left "correct for market failure" ideology:
1. Tenure--As a tenured professor at Rutgers, a pro-market position pushes me in an altruistic direction all else equal, while a market-correcting position (reflected in New Jersey law, under which fourth year K-12 teachers automatically receive tenure) reinforces my job security interests;
2. Land-use regulation--As a homeowner in a quite plush New Jersey suburb, I'm a beneficiary of an elaborate web of regulation (no commuter parking on my street, which is right next to a train station; single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes) that makes it more costly for outsiders to join me in becoming homeowners but that allows me to be something of an inner suburban squire. A pro-market position on land-use regulation like that taken by Ed Glaeser pushes me in an altruistic direction, while a market-correcting one reinforces my interest in upholding my current way of life;
3. Exclusive support for public education--As a faculty member at New Jersey's major state university, as a school board member, and as a parent whose children go to public schools now and may well go to Rutgers in the future, a pro-market voucherization position on education like that taken by Milton Friedman is contrary to my interests, while a market-correcting position in favor of government-provided education reinforces them;
4. Where to live--As a New Jersey resident for most of my life, I've faced a series of choices about which city or suburb to live in. Particularly for whites such as myself, a market-correcting position that criticizes laissez-faire in housing markets for leading to segregation and the decline of majority-minority communities pushes me in an altruistic direction in regard to choice of community of residence, while a pro-market position supports my interest in maximizing the value of my housing investment. On the other hand, once I've chosen to live in an integrated inner suburb, it is the market-correcting position that supports my interests;
5. Tax rates--This category is trickier than some others. The fact that both my wife and I work for public educational institutions gives us an interest in high state and local taxation, while the fact that our family income is high gives us an interest in federal tax cuts for high earners;
6. Social welfare spending on health care, etc. for low-income people--Here, unlike in the case of education, the market-correcting position pushes me in an altruistic direction, while the pro-market one reinforces my interests.
The overall count of egoistic rather than altruistic interests for me winds up at 4.5-1.5 in favor of the market-correcting position, treating taxes as a wash and further treating market-correcting interventions in favor of inner suburbs as in my interest given my residence in such a suburb. The obvious point is that given that tilt, it would be reasonable to guess that my sympathies will lie on the liberal side of the political spectrum more than the conservative one, absent feelings on culture or foreign policy that would tilt me the other way. Three points of broader interest : a) The exercise helps show some of the difficulties in assessing altruistic and egoistic tendencies within ideologies (for example, support for tenure could be described, contrary to the way I've done it, as a pro-market position to the extent it is freely negotiated for by employees and employers rather than fostered by the state), but overall supports the possibility of making such assessments; b) people who believe in a side that heavily reinforces their interests are a "dangerous class" to the degree they lack the level of internal checks and balances present in those who are more cross-pressured, but are valuable to the degree that their egoistic values can lead them to a high level of effort in coming up with value-enhancing ideas and actions; and c) whether the ideas generated by members of the "dangerous class" are value-enhancing depends on whether they are aligned with victory-oriented politics in which victory depends not on either side's dangerous class but on swing voters who are cross-pressured.
