This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why More Econ Majors Are Republicans Rather Than Democrats
From The Daily Capitalist
The New York Fed just published a study on the political and civic behaviors of college graduates based on their majors (“Is Economics Coursework, or Majoring in Economics, Associated with Different Civic Behaviors?” Sam Allgood, William Bosshardt, Wilbert van der Klaauw, and Michael Watts (no. 450, May 2010)). Don't ask me why they study these things, but they do.
This was a longitudinal study based on surveys mailed out to over 25,000 graduates from Florida Atlantic (FAU), Nebraska-Lincoln, North Carolina (UNC), and Purdue. The surveys were done in 1976, 1986, 1996, and 2003. They broke down majors into three broad categories--economics, business, and general (not the other two majors).
They concluded that econ majors were statistically significantly likely to be Republicans. They also found that econ majors were more likely to donate money and volunteer on behalf of candidates. Further it found that business majors behaviors were no different than genral majors.
Here are the significant results:
[O]ur results clearly suggest there is more to the story than simply “being educated” – so that what people study in college, or what they choose to study, is associated with their civic behaviors many years after they graduate.
Most previous studies that look at the link between education and civic behavior simply include a control for the amount of education a person has. This implies “being educated” influences a person’s civic behavior, but it ignores the possibility that the content of what a person is learning might also influence behavior.
Our analysis shows several statistically and economically significant associations between coursework in economics, or majoring in economics or business, and later civic behavior, including party affiliation, making donations to political parties, and volunteerism. ...
To briefly preview our results, those who took more economics classes or who majored in economics or business were more likely to be members of the Republican party and less likely to join the Democratic party. Those findings hold even after controlling for the higher salary, higher equity in real estate holdings, and earning a graduate degree.
Without controlling for salary, the value of real estate holdings, and graduate degrees earned, we found that with a higher number of economics classes taken increased the likelihood that a person had donated money to a political party or campaign. ...
The number of economics courses completed by the graduates of these four schools significantly decreases the likelihood that a person does not join a political party and the likelihood of joining the Democratic party, while the number of economics courses is positively related to the likelihood of joining the Republican party. For example, taking five economics courses is associated with an eight percent decrease in the likelihood of joining the Democratic party and more than a 10 percent higher chance of joining the Republican party. These marginal effects are large relative to the unconditional means reported in Table 1. For example, approximately 40 percent of respondents report being members of the Republican party, so a 10 percentage point increase for 5 economics courses represents a 25 percent increase. ...
However, business majors are less likely than General majors to participate in time consuming activities such as voting in the 2000 Presidential election or volunteering, and when they volunteer they volunteer for fewer hours than do General majors. ... Our estimates reveal the somewhat surprising result that the attitudes of business students on public policy are more similar to General majors than to Economics majors.
I think what this means is that if you have some understanding of how the economy works, you realize that business and commerce is harmed by legislation rather than helped by it. While we know that the Republican Party is not a bastion of free market economics, if you are painting with a very broad brush the Republicans are viewed as being more pro-business and more anti-government than the Democrats. And I think that is why econ majors tend to be Republicans.
I understand that much of what is taught in economics classes these days in Keynesian or Monetarist as far as Fed policy and the government's role in the economy, so please don't jump down my throat. But the basics of economics do teach supply and demand, business responses to taxation and regulation, and the role of business in creating jobs. It is interesting that the more econ courses one takes, the higher the likelihood is of being Republican.
I wonder what the party affiliation is of Ph.Ds in economics?
I, for one, think this is a hopeful conclusion. Imagine if we were able to teach the basics of Austrian theory economics in every college in America. The Libertarians would win.
»
- advertisements -
Those of you who criticize Austrian theory economics haven't studied it or have any idea of what it is. MisesFTW apparently read Mises but doesn't understand it.
If there is any branch of economics that is more in tune with human behavior it is the Austrian School. At one point it was called the Psychological School because of its focus on individual behavior rather than "national" or "aggregate" behavior. It is the least Utopian of any economic theory.
If you have a complex spontaneous society, then by devolving power into the hands of individuals isolates mistakes of economic behavior. When incorrect economic policies are cast in concrete as they are in most countries with regimented regulation of economic behavior, the mistakes become systemic.
This systemic mistake is what happened with our current crisis. When the Fed creates the boom-bust business cycle, when the government's policies entice capital into housing, then you have systemic failure. You can't let Wall Street off from their share of blame for using faulty risk models, but the whole boom-bust was created by government action. Which is another way of saying that the centralization of economic power into the government magnifies their mistakes systemically. We need to take this power from them and put it back into the hands of the people.
Econophile,
I know what you are trying to express here and i will try my best to articulate what i'm trying to say. I 100% agree that individuals allocate resources better than any group or government. I don't disagree that the the Fed creates the boom-bust cycle. I do agree that the Austrian school is the most appropriate that i have read. However, what i am trying to articulate is that from a practicality standpoint, Austrian economics will probably not take hold in the public sector anytime soon.
Here is why i say this.
Let's say we hit the reset button on the economy and we start over with Austrian economic policies.
Eventually i believe that Farcism or something that resembles it will organically form again.
I say this because i believe it is human nature to rig the game. The first Rockefeller or Henry Ford, i use these names loosely here, in the new economy will probably lobby the government to create barriers to entry in their industry because who wants competition? Makes me spend money on R&D and reduces my margins, screw that right? Once the economy goes down this road of private corporations buddying up with the government, it probably leads to Marla's 'Farcism.'
I hope you understand what i'm trying to say. I respect your posts and look forward to reading the brilliant analysis you provide to this great site.
I wonder how.
The whole deal is to decline the mathematical model: start with postulates to build a consistent system that human beings are supposed to follow.
Any deviation from the theorized model cannot be a failure of the model as just like mathematics, it is derived from postulates. Anytime a human being does not behave according, that is not the model which is at fault but well the human being.
Speaking of endoctrination.
Whatsoever, in the end, anyone relying on competition looking for the most powerful area of the world to implement his thesis is in serious troubles.
Dumbest article on ZH ever. 90% of American college grads paid attention 10% of the time. That doesn't say much econ grads or the Republican party.
Also , the more people that are exposed to bullshit, the more people believe it.
SO lets have everyone indoctrinated to the bullshit. That will change things to be better.
How about econ be taught as the bullshit 'maybe' it is.
Oh yeah forgot to mention, the whole study is a piece of behavioral bullshit.
No way. The reason most economists are republican is simple.
Republican's can more easily digest drinking kool-aid. They more easily suspend reality. I've seen it my whole life, forget the reality of the facts, the emotional talking point trumps all.
Republican's can hear 'drill, baby, drill", "oceans don't protect us", "we got to fight them over there", and all the complete bs that is spouted and believe it. Truly idiots on the Forrest Gump level who masquerade around as intelligent experts. Whoops, and a society that allows that is broken and fading. Yep.
Economists live in a fantasy world, where they attribute real world actions to the abstract that does not represent them. But they tend to overlook reality and believe in their formulas. Regulation is bad. Taxes are bad. Oversight is bad. Lasseiz-faire all the way until it crushes us. These people are idiots. They like make believe fairy land, and the real world economy is a vacuum bubble where everything happens right and is controllable. Thus we have the same idiots over relying on the gospel of statistical modeling.
A republican easily believes the BS that is 'less regulation is good', or whatever free market idiocy that erupts. Just like an economists believe their same bs 'rules'. Both republican ideas, and wall street ideas are pretty much devoid of any reality. So when a person is susceptible to believe fantasy, and multiple fantasies are around, then they will generally dip in both fantasies.
You need the SAME type of person, to be able to push off facts and reality, in lieu of bs. When we see a person both believe republican ideology AND economic ideologies, they are tapping the same groupthink part of the brain. The same thing that allows people to believe one bullshit, helps them believe the other. So when two very similar bullshits are out there, being a republican, and believing in economics.
Democrats KNOW it's bullshit, and don't waste their time as easily chasing the wall street opium dragon. republicans are too blinded to understand that. They put FAR too much stock into bullshit that really doesn't describe diddly squat, it just so happens to be 'right' now. Then when things change, because they didn't peg it, they come up with another ad-hoc reason. All you need to do is watch any economic back and forth and you can tell they are throwing out whatever they can to see what sticks. If a market day validates it, it suddenly is real, instead of just coincidence, or a short term trend residing within a broken and rigged market.
So a person who believes Republican bullshit,
is also a person who will more easily believe economist bullshit.
It's not that they're better. It's that they more GULLABLE.
Hell my half brother used to work at the WTC for MS/DW, HE is a mormon (HIS mom was mormom), and completely a republican shill who can't be critical of anything republicans, nor free market ideology represents. In his eyes, they can do no wrong. He's a fucking idiot.
The same bs that he believed about 9/11 and Iraq and the stock market all passes through the same unfunctioning part of the brain. These people aren't better...they have a handicap. Seriously. They see bs, and think it's real...and in important areas like our business and politics.
It means economists live in fantasy world like hardcore Sarah Palin republicans. If you believe Greenspan, you have a greater propensity to believe Palin. In other words, recuse yourself, for you have a tendency to not think, and be an idiot.
Sorry, Republicans don't have some special gift, that makes them more likely to be 'economists' with an ability to understand some complex thing others don't.
They both equally stick their head in the sand. Belief in one begets belief in the other.
These people have an ability to suspend reality more easily, add in a faux x factor, and attribute to that which is unattributable, to fool themselves.
The same people that could believe George W. Bush's bullshit, is the same part of the brain that was suspended when Alan Greenspan spoke.
So of course republicans are more likely to be economists. They're both idiots, based on idiotic premises.
I was never fooled by bush, free markets, nor the bailouts, or war. I saw this whole thing coming, am a lifelong democrat, who just happen to score almost 40 points higher in my econ classes than the 10 year average of the hardest teacher...of which my particular class had a lower average than the 10 year, even after including my scores.
103 percent for a class average in the 60's (67). I didn't believe half of it, and knew the other half was shaky. But I could parrot it back for the hardest teacher. I just had to suspend reality, and parrot back bullshit my teacher wanted me to. Just like a good republican economist at any Wall Street firm.
It's not that republicans are better at it, it's that they make for a more easier mark and buy into it time and time again, hook, line and, sinker.
Better yet seems like a trend. They set it up to sucker in a certain set of people, making it more easy and streamlined to enact. They set the system up great, to sucker in all the idiots. One massive groupfuckthink. All believers, no detractors. Like a cult almost...but without grape kool-aid.
You want to fool an idiot? Get them to act on a republican ideology or free market economists one. Because both are based on unrealistic bullshit that only appears to describe reality, and the idiots don't check twice.
Economists are full of shit
Republican ideology is full of shit
(that doesn't mean some other ideologies don't have flaws or bullshit, but we're talking about those with a propensity to be involved in wall street and be an economist)
Therefore it is easy to see the same people FOOLED by both.
Republican bullshit
Economist bullshit
This isn't something to hang your hat on, it's a springboard to finding out a more complete reality. One which the above never reached without ditching the idiocy.
It's not that republicans and economists are smarter, it's that they more easily believe the bullshit, which in both cases is similar.
Good luck.
Didn't realize ZH was hurting for opinions. Most money oriented people are republicans? That's news? Republicans will choose gold over love. No shit. You people are deluded.
I've yet to be shown a single Nation that actually employs Austrian economics...
You are exactly right.
As i stated above, Austrian economics will probably not, i want to say never but we all know that leads to trouble, be instituted. I do enjoy reading Austrian economics but in my opinion they are no better than the Marxist in the respect of feasibility. All the Austrians suggest we should let things fail and let the markets take their course. Well that sounds terrific but human nature, especially since the progressive movement, of willfully supporting short term pain is not an option, no matter the future benefits. Why do people smoke? They know it's bad for them but say ahh f' it. Before they know it they have cancer and know they could have prevented the pain and ensuing death by taking proactive measures earlier in life. If it is not directly hitting me in the face it's not a problem right?
Not to mention austerity measures that Austrian school advocates would effectively oust most politicians. We can't have that now can we? I better stop before i ramble but i think you get my point. 'It aint gonna happen'
Apparently the study didn't study the affiliation of the newest major: Political Economics.
Now the democrats have managed to create a whole curriculum more attuned to the socialists' model of how life really works based on exquistely sensitive feelings and which can be used for graduates to enter into the political spectrum, get paid for it, and never have to ever work for a living. This manages to create supply as the driving force of demand, turning classical economic theory upside its head.
I wonder if somebody have data on wealthy heirs. Are they more likely to be Republicans or Democrats?
Are military school major in favour of war or more against war?
The study says nothing else than people who are well trained in a field are favourable to a system going their way.
As written on another comment section, economics work by substituting actual knowledge of a system with the conviction of how the system is supposed to work.
Precedent crisis exposed this fact violently.
Nothing different from religion. Christianity introduced salvation.
The existence of salvation does not matter.
What matters is the capability of persuasion on how to gain salvation.
Knowing if salvation exists and even knowing how to gain salvation is not required.
All that is required is persuasion on spreading a way to salvation. Once enough people are convinced that this propagated way is The way to gain salvation, mission accomplished: the substitution is accomplished.
From ignorance (and still ignorant), you moved to a construed system that is not reflecting another reality than the one you created. Hence by the way the importance of power.
Has anyone similar data on religion? What are majors in religion studies more likely to be? Republicans or democrats?
>I think what this means is that if you have some understanding of how the economy works, you realize that business and commerce is harmed by legislation rather than helped by it.
Oh puuhlease!
We've just seen what "light handed regulation" and "let corporations regulate themselves" produces - clusterfuck central.
Ritholtz NAILS it here...
Understating the Benefits of Avoiding Low-Probability Disastrous Consequences
I went into college wanting to study finance and switched to economics because I wanted to know 'why' Can we get some emotion faces here?
Well before I knew it I was doing IS-LM curves not knowing WTF was going on. I mean you learn the stuff and really don't know any better until you deviate from the syllabi and read on your own.
I've read Cantillon, Smith, Marshall, Ricardo, J.B. Say, Mises, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard and yes I read them, the respective major works, all except Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. I mean who has really read that cover to cover. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money is a frustrating read and very hard to get through cover to cover.
Whomever recommended Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies +1000
I'm not as brilliant as many of the ZH community but this is what I have concluded as of now.
My conclusion is that a free market economy is very hard to achieve because I believe it is contrary to human behavior. The temptation to rig the game is extremely tempting. A true free market economy is as utopian as what Karl Marx had in mind. I think we tend to forget how young the United States is. In the short time of this country we have seen how our economy has morphed into 'Farcism.' We started this country with the best intentions knowing full well the mistakes of the past.
I think it is safe to say that the economy we have experienced from the inception of this country has been the greatest standard of living increase in human history. But how long will it last? Yes I am reading Tainter.
Sorry i have terrible grammer.
Bingo... we have a winner. And your grammer is just fine.
Flak
I think that as Americans, we would like to ascribe our considerable success to some ideological supremacy via Adam Smith or Jesus, or whoever, rather than realizing that we basically had a very hard-working, growing, well-educated, goal-driven immigrant population in a nearly empty continent with vast natural resources.
Don't forget the contribution of labor unions (before they morphed into the parasitic due collectors we have today.)
+1000
Well done sir.
And we have a second winner... never confuse the primary economy with the tertiary.
correlation != causation as rightly pointed out by Sad Sufi
But honestly, who gives a crap?
Hey guess what, I bet more sociology majors are Democrats.
OMFG!
Worst post ever on ZH. Let's co-opt the normally non-partisan ZH community with a stupid debate about repugs and demoncrats.
Both parties are irredeemably captured, as we all very well know.
As far as ideology is concerned, our decrepit, rotting political lexicon is completely useless, except to the status quo.
That's why this debate sucks.
I'd say the last two years has been the revenge of the economics major writ large (in both parties).
But then again, where I went to school, you became an economics major when you realized you weren't going to cut it in physics, chemistry, or biology.
See my comment above....
Most econ degrees are much like some sort of communist party indoctrination school in the old USSR. They produce market fundamentalists and quakademics by the boat load. Imagine all the Velveta cheese-product poured into the heads of the students at Columbia by Charlatans like Jeffery Sachs...dismal.
I have an economics degree...and then I had to study for years to unlearn monetarist nonsense. I actually called myself a monetarist as an undergraduate. The scary thing is that no one in the room properly ridiculed me for saying something so foolish, because they were all equally as bad off. I really thought MF was a genius years ago, and no one was there to articulate why he was a genocidal fraud working for the big banks.
I think the ultimate economic weapons of mass destruction are the fools running around with economics degrees spouting mystification and obsurantism about the world. These witch doctors and shamens, with their fetishes and talismans, created the justification for the derivatives nightmare we are living in today.
Das Kapital should be required reading for all econ majors.
Let's see, Ph.D in physics, never had a course in economics, but I will debate any Nobel laureate on economic matters. I won't do worse than a draw. Guarenteed.
As an aside, 3nd course in Math. Phys., infinite dimensional vector spaces, eigenvalues, etc... 4 out of 25 passed the mid-term (I was one), Prof. read off the exam marks with digust and said "You should all be in economics!"....
To paraphrase Clausewitz
"Economics is the continuation of ideology by other means."
copyright Flakmeister 2010
Yes.
Care to elaborate?
Of course the question is which came first in this correlation: a Republican-leaning person who studies economics, or an economics-interested person who then becomes a Republican.
Lets see the question is now between a democat or repunjacion.
This whole system had devolved into a two party power struggle where the difference is vague. We used to have Tories, Whigs, Federalist but now power concentrated in only two,Here lies the problem. Unless you believe the msm will allow a Ross Perot or Ralph Nadar to make it past New Hampshire. Burn it all down me says.
Economics is not a science, it's not even good social science. Bad
theory generates bad results, just look around the Wall street landscape.
Econ 101 starts with: 1. assume perfect competition, 2. assume rational man and on and
on. Then, develop elborate math models based on erroneous
assumptions and soon, you have a religion, not a science. Soon, some people extrapolate
economics to reality and looks very foolish.
I like Debunking Economics by Steven Keen, he makes your point, differently, his main point it modern economics essentialy ignores debt, bad thing to ignore, but very convenient for some to ignore.
Correct.
You have a slight point fishbum2. But, Economics 102 clearly teaches that "Bailouts don't work". And, the housing market defied simple supply and demand. These 2 Fundamental theories do and will hold true. Elaborate math models would be considered Technical analysis (herd mentality).
Well it's certainly no accident that the rich are getting richer and the rest are getting poorer. That's our economy and it has been for 30 years. It's just that in this crisis the pace has picked up massively.
I'd say most econ majors learned enough economics to realize for themselves the folly of big government.
It is too bad that they did not learn enough poli-sci to realize that, in reality, the Republican party does not represent small government much more than the Dems these days.
What is the most common undergrad majors for law school?
Double Major Econ/Poli Sci = Dickhead Attorney
Add to that upper division Econ courses are full of penis brain Republican frat boys who can get drunk all semester long and show up at midterms and finals hung over with a blue book and pass on bullshit...
Those twits would never survive upper division science and math courses.
Well that explains a lot of that...
I wish someone would study something worthwhile for a change. Perhaps studies on why Americans, particularly intelligent educated types, are dumb enough to support either party! The American political system is as broken as its economy. They're all crooks, spouting rhetoric to become elected or remain in office. It's quite pathetic how easily the "divide and conquer" or "divide and distract" manifesto works.
I couldn't agree more with you.......hummmm Mr. Savant! It is unbelievable at how broken this system is and how anyone can possibly support either of these archaic, theiving political parties. After receiveing a Minor in Economics and living through the Bush era......I'd rather commit suicide than be classified as a Republican. Not to mention, I agree with absolutely nothing this Democratic bunch of thieves is pushing! Especially with the Fx intervention that is going on! That's ok Timmay.....bid it up so I can short it later or, catch me off guard and I claim losses on my taxes. It is a lose, lose, lose for the FED.
"I wish someone would study something worthwhile for a change."
The Study is from the FRBNY
What do you want them to study? The constitutionality of foreign currency swamps? Fed purchase of non government secured debt? Fed direct market intervention in securities? Fed massive USD currency devaluations? Fed AIG intervention? Timmay's tax return?
Evidently economics majors didn't do well in philosophy class. Fed employee cites the fact of statistically significant correlation between college major and Republican affiliation, and thereby Econophile arrives saliently at this false conclusion:
Ignore the inception of the greatest US budget deficits in history under Republicans Reagan and GWH Bush and GW Bush, which deficits exceeded those of Carter and Clinton by many times, but continue to Econophile's confusion between fact and perception:
By the above, does Econophile argue economists to not discern between "the view" and facts, or does he himself define "the view" and facts to be the same? In any case, I am of "the view" that economists both Keynsian and Monetarist cogitate errantly and write inconsiderately; and all physicists and engineers are of the opinion that rejects from their rigorous programs seek refuge in the rather relaxed one of economics.
Maybe cognitis just came down in the last shower. If so, the comments about Reagan can be excused. But anyone who was sentient in the 80s should remember that Reagan fought a war with the strongest power that has yet existed outside the US (ie the USSR) and defeated it without bloodshed and without damage to the US or its economy.
When he came to office, most people believed the USSR had surpassed the US, was militarily stronger and, in Khrushchev's words, would "bury the US". Fear was pervasive. Everyone feared nuclear war and many people thought it imminent. Thanks to their teachers, kids were even more freaked out about being obliterated by a nuclear bomb than they are about global warming today.
Reagan rearmed, was consistent in defending the interests of the US, and created a renewed confidence in the country. The USSR attempted to keep up but could not. Carter, like Obama, had thrown the towel in. Reagan took the fight to America's opponent and showed them and the world that the US was stronger. When he left office the USSR was crumbling and finally died in the early 90s.
There are few precedents for such an overwhelming victory obtained peacefully but through marshaling strength. Anyone who criticizes Reagan for running a deficit would have to do the same with Roosevelt and Truman. And they would be a dolt. Countries are not just economies.
What was that democrat's name that defeated Germany and Japan and died during his 4th term? It escapes me.
Anyone could do what Reagan did. Spend, Spend, Spend -- then spend some more.
Jeez, I knew I'd get these kind of comments. Let me state that I don't endorse Republicans (or Democrats). I agree that both parties are bad. I was talking about the popular perception of the two parties. If I had to chose between the two, I'd vote Republican. But I have a choice and vote Libertarian. This isn't about me. Why does everyone get so hyperbolic when they have the opportunity to write commentary? Cognitis, when you read more of my stuff you'll understand from whence I come. But thanks anyway for the comment.
Something non-hyperbolic for you, I think its a bit much to assert the casual relationship that econ major produces a Repub. It could be the reverse, that a conservative mentality or Repub affiliation produces econ majors. That is, there is self-selection in chose of majors and course emphasis. From day one, my engineering classmates were racially and politically diverse with many conservatives and liberals while most econ majors were white, conservative... just anecdotal stuff but shows a possible way that your conclusion is not the only one that can be drawn.
Some people here at ZH are passionate about not being partisan, as I/they see it as a trap, I tend to think of that as a generally good thing, most places on the Internet are passionate about being partisan.
Money, the funny thing is, that when I first saw the blurb for the Fed study I thought for sure it would conclude that they would be Democrats since all they teach is Keynes. I don't really have a clue why they are Republicans, but the study did control for a lot of things. So, I'm sticking with my theory.
Go back and look at what Clinton's first extended projection of his budgets was. He foresaw $190 billion deficits (a huge number at the time) without end.
He didn't realize that the economy was going to boom and he sure as hell didn't realize that the Repubs were going to take congress in 1994 and for once actually mean some of their better rhetoric.
Clinton didn't sabotage the budget getting under control and that's to his credit. But to extend much credit to him would be a bit like congratulating an architect who'd drawn up plans for a raised ranch on the Georgian Colonial just put up.
They study these things because we are mired in epic fail because of these things.
Consequences, baby. It's all about consequences.
and excuse me, this was just published by the FED, the NEW YORK FED....i love how you guys believe nothing that is put out by that organizations, but the diehard, far rightists here are willing to swallow this load of nonsense....every word, every period, every clause.....
you guys ... rupert murdoch has wet dreams about your gullibility.....so do Timmy and Ben.
\o christ, get over yourselves.....god, the height of "wit" calling the Dems, "dumbocrats" or "dimocrats"...
I read stuff like that its no wonder Fox TV with its moronic anchors has such high ratings....
Ah guys, I have Phd in Econ....AND I WAS IN CLASSES WITH BERNANKE AS A KID and tought he was an idiot then and think he's a total idiot now....and i am NOT A REPUBLICAN.
Get it? I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. Or, as the "wittiest" here would say, a Repuglithug.....
Jesus. Grow UP.
In my view we need many more Republithugs!
The name has a certain macho ring to it. Don't know what it means exactly but I'll take a Republithug any day over the pansy blowdries on the Republican side of the isle today. :-)
Just sayin!