Permit me a moment to wheeze forth on a pet peeve of mine. Below, David points us to a discussion of Gov. Spitzer’s woes, and how Spitzer’s “political capital” might have been better used doing something other than whatever it was he was doing. And here in Massachusetts, we phumphered and fretted that our own landslide-winning Guv had frittered away his political capital on Caddies and drapes.
Without any particular disrespect to the writer, but only to the concept itself: This is a dumb way of talking and thinking about politics — wherein the power to govern is thought of as a finite substance, or a measurable accounting of some currency. Phooey.
“Political capital” is one of those nebulous concepts that people typically use to talk about stuff that’s already happened. Saying “Gov. X has political capital” basically has no predictive power for what’s going to happen, IMO.
Remember President Bush after the election in 2004?
And it’s one of the wonderful — it’s like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened in the — after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election — and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.
Well, he didn’t exactly enjoy a series of successes on his priorities there, did he? So either he didn’t have as much political capital as he thought he did, or there just isn’t such a thing. Maybe he was just trying to do a bunch of things people didn’t want done, like trashing Social Security … or, say, botching a war and standing by while a major US city flooded.
Like phlogiston, there actually really is no such thing as political capital. You’re either doing things that power centers (the electorate, special interests, etc) want done, or you’re not. The sooner we do away with this Easter-bunny way of talking about politics, the better.
the willingness of others who have power to do what you want.
Just curious. Why a “3” for the above.
Without any particular disrespect to the writer, but only to the concept itself: this is a fragile argument.
<
p>
You really think people believe political capital to be a finite or tangible substance?
<
p>
Political capital is used to describe a combination of an elected official’s credibility, momentum and overall strength and support. Having a lot of political capital is sometimes known as having a mandate. It’s a measurement of how crowded the bandwagon is.
<
p>
The world works this way. And politics definitely works this way. Sorry if it’s your pet peeve. Learn to cope.
<
p>
P.S. I don’t really think there’s an actual bandwagon that rolls down the streets, with people–and the Easter Bunny–jumping on or off. It was just a figure of speech.
There’s no measurement except for polls. And polls will tell you people want one thing or another. The idea that you can push through something that people don’t want because you have “political capital” is hogwash.
Or can I? There’s no measurement that will assign a number to it. I suppose my words and deeds toward my wife can be observed and judged by someone who understands love. They might be able to roughly determine how much love there is.
<
p>
I don’t want to go to the women’s shoe department, but my love for my wife contributes to me being there.
<
p>
Tell me Charley, do you love anyone? Or is love another Easter Bunny?
<
p>
Is leadership Santa Claus? Is courage the tooth fairy?
<
p>
Political capital doesn’t mean you can push something through that people don’t want. It means that your overall popularity increases your chances of passing individual things.
<
p>
You really have a mental block on this, don’t you?
It is well understood in politics that a popular person running at the top of the ticket can improve the chances of those running in the same party for lower offices, especially if the candidates are seen together or have shown support for each other. Similarly, a popular leader pushing a particular issue will be able to convince those otherwise on the fence on the issue being pushed that they can improve their own popularity/ re-election chances by supporting the leader’s position.
<
p>
The example about Bush doesn’t work here because he was elected only because of a small number of voters in one state (Ohio) that could’ve swung the difference. If he had won the election by 60%-40% and received 400+ electoral votes, there is no question he would have had more success in pushing his agenda through in 2005.
Men don’t have hoo-ha’s, that’s what women have. You must have atteneded an abstinence only high school.
hoo-hoo’s.
<
p>
Well, they teach differently in upstate NY.