If your vote for president in the general election turns on the following, you are a sucker: Character issues, such as consistency, temperament, judgment, experience, or any other quality that accrues to the individual candidate, rather than to their political ideology; abstract ideas like hope, the “American dream” or an end to “politics as usual.”
What a jerk I must be! How could I say that character doesn’t count? How could I say that we should not vote our hopes? Well, the truth is that character doesn’t count much at this stage of the game, especially the general election for president, and if your hopes and dreams are not consistent with a coherent philosophy of government, then they are worthless.
When Obama finally gets out from under the Clinton barrage to face John McCain in the general election the chattering class will spend 99% of its time talking about “issues” that mean nothing to knowledgeable voters. The only thing knowledgeable voters care about is the ideological profile of the candidates. The rest is just noise, or bread and circuses, if you will, intended to bring along the ignorant masses one way or the other. There is one important exception to the ideological perspective of knowledgeable voters – pure economic interest voters. While these folks do have ideological preferences, they hedge their bets so they can get what they want from whoever wins. In other words, elections are speculative affairs, not meaningful debates about the future.
Who are these voters who understand what really matters? Ironically, they are the ones given the least credibility in the mass media and the public at-large. They are the devoted partisans; the voters who understand their own ideology and that this larger conceptual element of a candidate’s profile far outstrips the rest when it comes to predicting what they will do if elected. Political scientists (99% of whom are partisan) have long established via survey research that there is a very strong correlation between civic knowledge and partisanship. In other words, the more you know about how our system works the more partisan you are likely to be. The myth of the intelligent independent voter is not a myth, but it is clearly the exception that proves the rule that so-called “independence” is actually an expression of ignorance. This argument, despite being supported by the evidence, always pisses people off. All I can say is that you might be one of the few independents who understand the system. Certainly the pundits and pols who claim this status are not ignorant of the system, they are just playing a niche market that is growing steadily (unfortunately).
In a very real way the voters who act most like spectators (ironically) in general elections are the most knowledgeable ones. They root for their candidate like a sports team because they have already figured out which side most closely resembles them philosophically. And, they understand that this philosophical kinship is FAR more important and predictive than ANYTHING else. The folks still trying to “figure it out” are actually the ones least knowledgeable about our political system. Because of this, general elections look like two groups of adults trying to sway a large group of children to make the right choice as they understand it. If you are trying to get kids to do something you see as good for them, don’t you often skip the complex explanation of why it’s good for them and merely make it attractive to them in some way? Of course you do, and that’s EXACTLY what campaigns and partisan pundits and groups do in elections, comically pandering to these ignorant voters by making it seem like they are the thoughtful ones; the ones doing their homework and “not falling for spin.”
If all this is true (and it is) shouldn’t voters be more willing to become partisan and/or rely on partisan analysis? The answer to the first part is likely the easiest; people don’t have the time or inclination to study philosophy and to develop an integrated philosophy of governance (ideology). The answer to the second part is a bit more complicated. Average voters DO rely on partisan analysis, but (of necessity) only the kind of analysis that relies on the ignorance of voters regarding ideology and the workings of the political system. For example, telling a voter that John McCain’s promises to eliminate all capital gains taxes when elected sounds good to folks who want to pay fewer taxes and may well earn McCain many votes. Unfortunately for these voters, basic knowledge of the political system would have made them realize that this promise CANNOT be fulfilled simply because he will face a Democratic legislature that will definitely prevent such a thing. For the candidate and his knowledgeable supporters, however, it’s a win-win in the short term. You attract voters, knowing you will never face the negative consequences of following through on it. Knowledgeable McCain supporters go along with the ruse, knowing that regardless of the makeup of Congress, it’s better to have a conservative in the Oval Office than a liberal. If they simply say this – conservatives are better than liberals – too much explanation would be required. Obviously, the same kind of scenario can easily be seen on the Democratic side.
Bottom-line: knowledgeable political actors either treat the average voter like a child and compete with each other to attract voters with the shiny objects (Character issues, scandals, fear, hope, etc…) or they tilt at intellectual windmills and become marginalized. Given the choice, it’s hardly surprising that most sign up for the “silly season.” If you think the only way to get your kid to take life saving medicine is to lie to him – what would you do?
Ask yourself why this is funny.
… but I’ll stick with one.
<
p>Temperament, judgment, and the ability to manage people are precisely what made Abe Lincoln a great president. He was a candidate of convenience with little executive experience and no strong ideological profile. He was constantly maneuvering between the radical and conservative elements of his party, as well as his political rivals like Salmon Chase. He was an extremely skilled pragmatist with a good heart; these qualities, plus circumstances that were largely thrust upon him, are what made him great.
<
p>That said, I concur with your general thesis that 99% of the content of elections is BS.
<
p>
if you’re talking about the general election, where people who have given a lot of thought to the system would probably already have a favorite party. But in the primary season (especially at the beginning) surely there is room for some sorting out of differences among the candidates, I would think. I’m not sure if being an “informed voter” should translate into sideline observation (although maybe you are right that it often can)- certainly merely “rooting for your candidate” is a terrible philosophy if you actually want them to win, if you feel that the outcome is important. Then I would think an informed person would want to dedicate some energy to campaigning, writing letters to editors, speaking, and even blogging about their candidate in an effort to convince others of the candidates’ merits.