I am an IR professor and this is an IR blog, but now and then, domestic politics screams out for attention. At election time it screams loudest, and what it screams is usually so at odds with what I know about the world that my blood pressure goes up. So, if only to help lower my BP, here are a few comments on this year's elections.
American Electoral System: We must always keep in mind that the nature of elections is largely driven by the design of the electoral system. In the US, we have single member districts with plurality voting, the so called "first past the post" system. This type of system (wherever it is used) results in two dominant parties which compete for the centrist voters. Therefore, their policy positions tend to converge and, since their is little policy differentiation, there is a dominant focus on personality politics. These systems are known for producing stable majoritarian policy, but also for alientaing many citizens and producing low voter turnout.
This is in contrast to proportional representation systems which feature multiple parties taking distinct policy stands across the political spectrum. Politics in these systems is very issue oriented and the personal charcateristics of elected officials are relatively unimportant. Becuase there is usually a party for every major political persuasion, citizens are more engaged in the system and greater numbers turn out to vote. However, this system produces more extreme swings in policy as the result of elections and often results in complex coalition governments.
I say all this because US elections always bring out a lot of hand wringing about negative ads, voter disaffection, and low voter turnout. As a political scientist, it is incumbent on me to point out that this is just par for the course. Complaining that politicians don't address issues is like complaining that they don't use drivers while playing miniature golf. They're all on the green making fairly short putts so the difference between winning and losing is the big windmill between them and the hole. (There is some sports cliche about driving for headlines and putting for cash that would be appropriate if the analogy wasn't alreday stretched too thin.) The point here is that much of what pundits complain about in elections is not so much a fall from grace on the part of the candidates as it is a response to the fundamental incentives of our electoral system.
Poltical Rhteoric: I am always personally a bit taken aback when I encounter sincere partisanship. Though there may be profound differences between the activists in each party, elected officials tend to produce policies that appeal to the mainstream of their constituencies, or to groups that are likely to swing the vote. Indeed, the system is designed in such a way that a party's most fervant supporters are likely to get the least policy satisfaction from it. One can see this is the chronic complaints of African Amercicans about the Democrats and the emerging complaints of Christian conservatives about the Republican party.
Because of this, I am forced to admit the logic behind what I consider to be the most distasteful and disegenuous aspect of American politics, i.e., the villification of the opposition. Living in the South, I am constantly exposed to the villification of Democrats who are portrayed as unpatriotic, immoral, and addicted to taxes. Hillary Clinton, for whom there is a palpable dislike, is a good example. It has often seemed to me that most of the talk about Hillary running for President comes from Republicans who see her as a dream opposition candidate. Jerry Falwell was criticized for saying his supporters would as soon vote for her as Satan but, frankly, I never heard truer words from the man.
Yet, when one looks at her Senatorial record, as the New York Post recently did, she comes off as more of centrist than a liberal. Indeed, the New York Post's endorsement of her for reelection expressed the hope that she would stay a senator and not run for president. As if President Hillary would abandon the centrist affectations of Senator Clinton to institute socialism and ban the bible. This is not to say that I am, in any way, a Hillary supporter. I just can't be a Hillary hater because I am personally and professionally convinced that the political system will continue to override any extremist views she may be "concealing".
For this reason, I am particularly dismissive of what I call "partisan noise." A good example of this would be assertions that Democratic victory would make the country less safe. These assertions lack credibility not just because they ignore the similarities of both parties' policies, but because they ignore the source of this similarity. That is, the need of both parties to attract swing voters and to satisfy the demands of the same voters, albeit within the context of not totaly ignoring the more diverse demands of party activists. Given the overwhelming public demand for security and its importance to the electorate, it is hard to imagine major changes in security policy resulting from a partisan power shift.
For this reason, I view US policy as more typically American than Democrat or Republican, and this is a view shared by most of the world. Recent polls have found that there is little international interest in the upcoming elections and most foreign publics see little difference between Democrats and Republicans. For that reason, I am can scarcely credit the Vice President's assertion that the recent violence in Iraq has been an attempt to influence the upcoming election. Beyond the fact that there are causes a plenty inside Iraq to account for the violence, this statement ignores the monolithic view of our political system that prevails in the world, and the very real basis in fact that supports it. Usually, only a change in the person of the President registers with foreign publics on the international polls, much as is the case with a large portion the US public.
The Iraq Issue: This issue is a good example of issue convergence. The American "mainstream" is disaffected with the policy and the administration that produced it. In competitive elections, candidates from both sides have been forced to take a critical stance on the war and the president in one form or another. The upcoming election will have an impact on Iraq policy not so much in terms of who has control of congress. Rather, it will signal to all Representatives and Senators the sensitivity of voters to the issue. If Democrats gain a significant number of seats, potential 2008 candidates in both parties will be encouraged to support revisions in the policy and to take a stand in opposition to (or at least indepedent of) the president. If Republicans hold their own, potential candidates will be less encouraged to do so. In either case, the shadow of 2008 will have more of an impact than the results of 2006.
This is one reason that neither Democrats or Republicans have a "plan" for Iraq. While Republicans may proclaim that Democrats don't have a plan, the shift in rhetoric away from "stay the course" to "establishing benchmarks" and being flexible makes the Republican plan as vague as Democratic alternatives. Both parties have to see how the vote goes in 2006 to determine what will play well in 2008. Right now, both sides offer vague calls for change that vary primarily in the degree of change for which they are calling. I suspect that Democrats as well as Republican are happy that the Baker (and Hamilton) Iraq Study Group will issue its report after the elections when both parties will be better informed about the Iraq issue's impact on actual voters.
Getting Elected: If all this seems a little too self-righteous, it has to be pointed out that the first duty of all politicians is to get elected. To do so they must generally appeal to two different electorates. In the primaries, they must win the votes of the registered members of their parties who tend to be more conservative or liberal than the electorate to whom they appeal in the general election. In both elections, candidates must affirm the values, beliefs and worldviews of these two electorates which conflict with each other and, often, with reality. Very few candidates in competitive elections can reconcile these conflicts with any significant policy alternatives while projecting a distinct image. Most are forced to speak in terms of vague generalities, to emphasize their personal character, and to attack their opponent.
John McCain and Joseph Biden are too of my favorite senators in that they usually approach policy questions in a thoughtful manner that takes into account the complexity of most such issues. However, they both come from "safe" states and only face reelection every 6 years. They can afford the occasional subtlety and nuance in their positions. Largely because of his largely unassailable reord in Vietnam, McCain might stand a chance of being elected president. However, all his past subtlety and naunce will be an albatross around his neck, especially in the primary elections.
To win, he will have to do things that will probably diminish him in my eyes and, I suspect, in his own. The irony here is that he will have to compromise his views to become an uncompromising advocate of the views of the voters. Not to put too fine a point on it, but to win, the electoral system will demand of him on the campaign trail what the Vietnamese couldn't get in the Hanoi Hilton. Of course, in this case the electoral compromise will be for the sake of the greater good not, as was the case in Vietnam, for his own good. However, for a thoughtfully princpled person, sacrifice will be the price of admission and won't guarantee success. Therefore, I always feel a touch of pity for the poltiician.
No comments:
Post a Comment