Do politicians in our system really need to earn *your* vote? Do individual choices really matter or does it only count when millions of people do the same thing at the same time?
This is in response to the question I see often on this blog: why is Obama not speaking to me and my concerns? The short answer is that he doesn't have to.
The longer answer has to do with what I think is an American cultural myth about the individual voter.
The narrative I want to analyze goes something like this: in order to win, individual voters must be persuaded that the candidate is a person of good character and that they share the same values and concerns. Successful candidates propose policies that are in line with these values and that will benefit the lives of the voters.
The Character Myth.
I propose that an individual voter can never know the true "character" of any politician. Like rockstars and Hollywood celebrities, they pay people to construct and maintain a perception of their character.
I would even go as far as to say that politicans aren't really even people. They are functions.
This is why all the media coverage about "getting to know the candidate" and all the blog coverage about whether a candidate really is a good person or not are irrelevant.
Let's take Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Are they good people or bad people? Were they good people before they took over the congress in the last election but they somehow became bad people after that as evidenced by their caving on every important piece of legislation?
Maybe their character is irrelevant, but the balance of forces that have the power to shape their decisions are a better predictor of what they will do.
The Policy Myth.
The Bush/Rove machine has proven that it is easy to get voters to vote against their own interest.
The way campaigns work now is to either pander unrealistic legislative specifics to targeted audiences (the Clinton/Mark Penn way) or try to avoid policy statements altogether (the Obma/Axelrod way).
The idea is that some policy specifics will please one democraphic but piss off another demographic. You can't make all voters happy, so you focus on the ones that can be persuaded and that live in districts that are strategically important.
The Protest Vote Myth.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. It felt good because I thought I was doing what I was supposed to: voting for someone whose policy proposals matched with the things that are important to me.
But it had no impact, as far as I can tell. Nader lost. Bloggers blamed me for the Gore and Kerry campaigns' massive fail.
And most importantly, the Democratic Party did not learn the lessons I wanted them to learn. The Democratic Party, as a consequence of these losses, did not reach out to the more leftist/progressive voters of the Green Party. They did not enact more progressive legislation.
They turned their failure and the resulting outrages of the Bush administration into *the* reason for voting Democratic.
The Individual Voter Myth.
If Mr. Smith went to Washington today he would be ridiculed 24/7 on the cable yak shows and wind up homeless.
"Man on the street" interviews and such perpetuate this myth that "you matter". Politicians really want *you* to like them. But the media and politicians know that this is bullshit.
The myth may have it's origins in high-minded Emersonian philosophical principles, but it has been exploited by the advertising industry which knows all to well how to create the illusion of individual choice.
It also is the thinking that drives blogging. Will politicians be swayed in their decision making by a well-crafted, heartfelt blog post?
But then again, this is the age of the internet-enabled social network. So if you are a blogger with any kind of audience, your opininons have the power to influence many other individuals. So maybe your views are important after all?
Please discuss. Not sure what my point is exactly, I'm just venting some things I've been thinking about for the past months in re the election.
- shystee's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Krugman on Rat Democracy
Relevant to what you're discussing.
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
Do politicians in our system really need to earn *your* vote?
If they don't, then the system is broken.
My other answer -- and I'm pretty blogged out today -- is that it's not just "my" vote that's at issue, but the vote of those who are like me. So, to the extent that my views are a proxy for a class or group of voters, then, if the system works, then yes, my vote needs to be at least taken into account.
If my issue is that every automobile should be preceded by someone waving a red flag, then my vote is probably a proxy for a group of one.
If my issue is (say) FISA, or the bailout, or single payer, or HOLC, or misogyny, or the democratic process, then one would think that my issue is not idiosyncratic, since these issues go to basic, Maslow's heirarchy stuff, like health in the case of single payer, or shelter in the case of HOLC, or safety in the case of misogyny. (FISA and process being farther up the heirarchy.)
So, I think that if you're hearing "Why doesn't Obama ask for my vote" and translating that to "That voter thinks it's all about them," that's a misconception. It's about that voter and people like that voter, because if Obama isn't asking for my vote, he's not asking for their vote either. And if he does ask for mine, he is asking for theirs.
That said, my experience/claim in this primary is that I and those like me have been, if not written off by the party, required to work a good deal harder to win the party's attention on policy than we thought. Now, one frequent response/theory for that is that we suck (fill in the blank, starting with cynical and moving through bitter and ending at racism). Even if that were true, it doesn't make the problem less systemic, eh?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
there are a bunch of answers--
for those of us who have always voted Democratic--that means something--a collection of priorities and positions that we agree with and that are very distinct from Republican policies--a focus on things that help us practically and individually, and lift more of society as a whole which also helps us. Central to many if not all of these is that government exists to act (tangibly and practically) primarily for us and our needs.
Democratic candidates have historically always spoken to our needs as a matter of course--until now.
All candidates should be persuading us that they both share our concerns and "get it", and that they will act on them for us.
And it's not that Republicans get people to vote against their interests--they run on different interests--less economic and practical, and more emotional and cultural. Those issues bring people to the polls and many Americans care deeply about them.
" the balance of forces that have the power to shape their decisions are a better predictor of what they will do." -- that's why voting and elections matter--because it's the only time that their jobs are (or should be) dependent on our votes and not on other forces.
The Democratic candidate this cycle should be way way way ahead everywhere, given the disgust with the economy, Republicans and Bush--that this candidate isn't has a lot to do with the fact that he hasn't spoken to our concerns -- and in fact has based his campaign on working with the very people and interests responsible for our problems, instead of wanting the job explicitly to stop their damage and get us moving forward again.
I think that's right
I evaluate a candidate based on whether he shares the concerns I do, or put another way, sees a very similar set of problems that require solution. As Lambert indicated, I assume that a much larger group sees the same problems I see. And beyond that, the problems I see aren't just my bank account or standard of living - I take as concerns problems that other people have that may never affect me at all, or whose solution might affect me adversely (for example, higher taxes).
It's less important to me specifically how a politican will solve a problem, unless I see parameters of his proposed solution (Obama's health care plan, FISA) that I think will actually be counter-productive or reflect values that I don't hold.
Loosely, I'd identify the electorate's function as identifying problems and setting goals and the candidate's campaign function as responding to those, or, in some fantasy world, actually educating the electorate and leading in the identification of problems.
The actual implementation of solutions isn't something most voters or most candidates are capable of doing. Which is why - ideally - we leave interpretation of laws to judges, why Congress holds hearings, and why we set up bureaucracies with expertise, like the EPA, FDA, SEC, etc.
And then we should hold the candidates accountable with respect to how well or poorly they've dealt with all those problems.
song for shystee
support politicians with suspicion
I go with my feelings and observations
They are all politicians. Some are liars and some really try, I think to be as honest as possible.
Me...I watch, listen and watch and listen some more. Then I do some research and repeat steps one and two.
There are a few issues I am passionate about and I will not compromise those. I also identify with the old Democratic Party rather than the new Donna Brazil Democratic Party; young high information only, educated only, no need for blue collar and those who do not need social programs or have special needs.
I believe that we, the voters, are being duped this election. Neither of these men have any ideals nor the emotional attachment to lead. It feels to totally self centered and I won't vote for grandiosity or someone's need for power.
That is what my watching, listening and observation has told me. :-)
Politics is Personal
I think the first weakness of the original post is not realizing the personal nature of politics, particularly the personal nature of executive branch politics. At the end of the day, after you've considered all of the policy positions politics is one of the very few places where you personally invest your faith in someone else to stand in your place where you can not be available 24/7. And, the voting for the office of the president of the United States is probably the most personal vote we're ever asked to make. It's our city and township councilpersons, and our Congress that has to (or is charged to) do the heavy lifting. Those positions are must less personal. There are 535 congresspersons, and many, many more city and state congresspersons. There is only one president, and many fewer governors and mayors.
I didn't want to get too meta, but I feel I had to explain why it's important that people running for these symbolic executive jobs have to talk to me. We're not choosing a CEO/COO for a corporation. Too many people make the mistake of believing that government should, or that it even could, be run like a business. It can't (and shouldn't); it's as simple as that.
If they don't want to talk to me and ask for my vote, well, they can run for legislative positions. Does that make sense?
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...