What happens in a democracy is that if the party in power does not deliver what the people expect, they will vote for another party, regardless of their views of sound policy--on which they probably have no settled views. Democracy is not a deliberative process (as many academics believe), in the sense that voters examine and discuss issues and so formulate a thoughtful, knowledgeable opinion on what policies are right for the nation or for them. Voters have neither the time, the education, nor the inclination for such an activity, as intellectuals imagine. All they know is results. So if the Right fails to deliver on its promises, the Left takes over, whether or not it has better or even different policies.
This sorta explains my recent skepticism on political reform and alternative voting systems. If there is some alternative system where voters are somehow given time and motivation to actually learn anything before making a decision, then I'm all ears. If not, then I don't see how political reform is going to make any difference in our process whatsoever, excepting the huge expenses such reforms would incur. I would prefer devoting our limited exchequer towards areas where there will be more noticeable benefits, like police protection, education, and disaster readiness.
(Posner also takes a somewhat cheap swipe at Catholicism later in the post, but I'll leave that for another discussion.)
So that sounds all well and good, but what did Bush promise, and did he deliver?
ReplyDeleteI ask because I see Bush delivering a conservative court and a country that is mildly isolated from the world (safer?).
I think both of those things could well be argued as "reasons why the country voted for Bush". Yet, anyone that keeps up with current events knows that the country(at this point) is not likely to elect a candidate for president endorsed by Bush.
I feel that I should say something, but I don't know what. I think the 2004 election showed to a large extent how pursuasive the counterthesis to this is. That you shouldn't just be voting against a person. I think it ties into risk-adversive behavior, but of course there are a lot of factors. That, combined with our attention span, makes it awefully hard to beat an incumbent.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like this 'Signing Statement' stuff may be something that will really upset legislators - who are the principal players in the party heirarchy - who decide who Americans can choose from. Of course Bush can't be reelected, but hopefully they be more careful in the future. Perhaps they will choose candidates that can counteract all the moves the administration has made to expand Presidential powers.
I know, slightly different topic.
Refutation?
ReplyDeleteIf people don't have time to formulate a thoughtful, knowledgeable opinion on what policies are right for the nation, then how are the following gainfully employed: Tim Russert, John McLaughlin, George Stephanopoulous, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Chris Matthews and Nick Haines (did I get you with the last one? Its KC Week in Review on KCPT)?
The fact is, they don't have time to read academic journals on the subjects, that's why they look to pundits to put it in a Thomas Paine-like perspective. People do pay attention to politics. And those who do not, are not at the polls.
Interesting responses, Posner's analysis was mostly directed at third world countries, it's interesting to contrast it with politics in our country.
ReplyDeleteBut our recent elections may not so resoundingly disprove his point. In 2004, about 45% of the country got what it wanted: rebate checks and a war against... someone.
Another 10% were too terrified to change the party in power in the middle of a war.
Meanwhile, 45% of the country did not want a hasty war before diplomacy and domestic improvement.
One thing is certain, as EP notes, we Americans love our pundits. But are most people tuning in to Fox or reading Mother Jones to hear interesting new ideas, or because we're seeking affirmation?
So what news sources do most voters follow? That data has to be out there somewhere, that would probably be dispositive here.