November 30, 2003
Political Pigeonholes
I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about the political spectrum in the United States. Specifically, how it seems as though many Americans don’t know, or understand, it’s realities and implications. Despite learning about political parties in High School, I have trouble understanding it because I have trouble labeling myself, for some of my views I feel that I am to the left of center, for others I fall on the opposite side. When discussing politics, I think that it is easy to label a view as Left or Right but, people should look at their own opinions and let them fall where they may, regardless of political party or right-left labels. Yes, there are “party” people who will take the stance of the party for the sake of the greater good but, for the rest of us, our individual issue choices cannot be, and should not be, pigeonholed so easily.
For example, I side with many of the views and opinions of Adam Smith regarding laissez faire economics and some of my views could be seen as conservative, whereas many of my social/labor views fall well to the left-hand side of the spectrum. While in Germany, I was as "comfortable" in discussions with skinheads (who are extreme right — and I do not condone their views) as with punks (who are usually hard-left and have a more Communist viewpoint). From my own experience, I have come to the conclusion that the German political spectrum contains more radical points-of-view but that is not to say that I have not met radical Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians (and one very radical one comes to mind) in the U.S. but, up until recently, polarized political opinions were not something I had seen much here in the States.
That seems to have changed (and is in flux) right now. I'm unsure if this is due to a mis-communication but, based on current events, it seems as though Americans are going farther and farther to the extreme ends of the spectrum, taking hardlines and an "us-versus-them" attitude — splitting the country into two factions: the Liberals versus the Conservatives. We hear about "right-wing conspiracies" (and I'll admit I have bought into a few) and the "Liberal media", which have lead people to blame one another for the problems with American society and the world at large, although our own myopia keeps us from seeing the larger picture. Post 9/11 America stood united to try and heal the deep wounds that were created whereas now it seems as though we have forgotten about 9/11 in favor of allegiance to the viewpoints of some carefully scripted talking-heads.
We base our views blindly on the opinions of those who have high-profiles rather than looking deeply at the issues and questioning the wheres, whys, and consequences. Take outsourcing for example: many of us who are employed in Information Technology (IT) in the U.S. are worried about our jobs going to developers in India, China, Russia, etc. Yet, this is a trend that we can really do little to stop. I'm consoling myself to the fact that many of these positions will return as U.S.-based companies come to the realization that they want to deal with Americans (simply because we are here and not half-a-world away) but there are many of these positions that will never return. I read and hear about the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and, while I lament for those who have lost their jobs, many people who are now out of work supported NAFTA (or, indirectly, the politicians who voted for NAFTA), not realizing its implications.
If we look to the War in Iraq, one interesting thing that I see is the huge number of people who support the President's actions and are proud of our troops, but who would not be willing to enlist themselves. I'll admit that I am too old to enlist and, when I was old enough, did not — mainly because my parents and others thought that I should look for other avenues post-High School. Personally, I support our troops and do not blame them for the current situation, but it troubles me deeply when I hear others complain or criticize them for what they are doing. I know, for a fact, that many of these people did not vote in the last elections (Presidential or otherwise) and do not know anyone who is in the military. Contributing to a democracy is not something which a laissez faire attitude can accomplish — if you did not voice your opinion at the polls then you have little to no reason to voice it elsewhere. Like jury duty, voting is something that we, as Americans, should do because it is our duty — not just to ourselves but also to our children and our children's children. We may not "like" these things but, if we are to stay American, then we should all take an active role in shaping the path of our country.
But where does that path lead? Referring back to my original question, should we (as voting Americans and active participants in our democratic process) lean towards one side of the spectrum or the other because that's what we are told to do, or should we vote based on our own morals and opinions? Currently, I find that politicians worry more about polling numbers than being truthful. They have become (for the most part) homogenized, made-for-TV versions of leaders, men and women who want to appeal to the lowest-common denominator rather than standing firm and true to their personal beliefs. As such, many of us are left with a "lesser-of-two-evils" choice when we reach the polls to cast our vote. True, we cannot agree with the candidates on every subject but we should feel free to express our opinions regardless of what category we will fall into — mainly because we should refuse to be lumped into categories. If, as many of us profess to be, we are truly rugged individuals, then we should ruggedly defend our individualism rather than submitting to applied stereotypes.
As we approach November 2004 I would hope that more of us worry about the specific issues at hand rather than which candidate we favor, rather than which candidate proves to be the most adept at avoiding direct answers in the hopes of not alienating any demographic. Instead of stereotyping ourselves with party affiliations and arbitrary right-left labels, let's make honest and informed choices. We're all in this together and we, as members of a democracy, have the power and the duty to make ballot choices which reflect our positions on the issues.
Posted by huxley75 at November 30, 2003 02:12 AMExcellent essay and I could not agree more with your thesis that we should vote our personal interests as opposed to party line votes where that choice would better server us.
I felt like a bit of a rugged individualist yesterday afternoon when I sent an email to the AARP asking them to remove me from their membership roles after they helped guarantee the overhaul of the Medicare legislation without even having read the details or insured that their membership’s interests were protected.
Felt even better when I read this morning that the AARP is unundated with similar emails, letters, and phone calls with a similar message. Felt truly American to have sent that email.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2003 10:53 AMOverall this essay is mainly good common sense. The problem doesn’t lie with people voting party lines, but with the way the media portrays the debate. If the debate is laid out as Democrat vs Republican, without specifiying the arguments beyond their barest skeletons, then people are forced to pick sides with the only information they have, political parties.
If the actual debate was covered by the media, then people could vote according to their actual values and beliefs. In the absence of such an informed electorate, then we fall short of democracy, and end up with what we have now.
Point of Note: Adam Smith NEVER proposed a Laissez Faire system. He always proposed using government to control the excesses of such a system. He outlined necessary government controls to promote competition and prevent monopoly, as well as controls for worker and minority rights, such as welfare. He saw unrestrained competition as self-destructive.
Posted by: Patrick Rogers at November 30, 2003 02:32 PMNice essay and I am glad that many of the issues I have been thinking about were mentioned.
It does seem that it has come down to a lesser of two evils or which candidate “sucks” less than the other. The Bush-Gore election reminded me of what I have heard about the Ford-Carter race. No wonder why voting is down and more and more Americans care less. Although, there is one critical point, or maybe just a choice of words, that stuck out to me: the use of the word “morals”.
It has been shown that more people vote upon lines of morality rather than policy and being in college only reaffirms that point as a mixing of communities occures. So many people are conservative and do not really know why they are, yet if you talk to them about certain liberal ideas they agree.
The best example of this would be the current President - and yes, I know I am opening a giant can by saying this - but because we live in a primarily chrsitian nation, so many people support our president because of his strong faith. Yet, people go on to ignore the several errors in his policy that will only set this nation down a road of problems.
I think a friend of mine put it best; that it is not really nescience, it is just that people do not know what they should and make quick assumptions along a fallicy in logic.
Posted by: Adam at November 30, 2003 03:52 PMThis relates to David R. Remer’s Nov. 14 post, One Party vs. Multiple Party Government: 2004 Election Issues. In that piece, David looked at the one party government currently in power (GOP control of Executive and Legislative branches), and how it really only represents 1/3 of the electorate since about 1/3 consider themselves Republican, 1/3 Democrat, and 1/3 independent.
In reponse to the piece, I pondered whether multi-party parliamentary govnerments might not govern in ways that more closely match the will and attitudes of the entire electorate because they force coalitions among parties to get legislation enacted.
Another benefit of such a milti-party system is that people can support parties that more closely align with their political views. Our Repulican/Democrat system that renders 3rd parties irrelevant forces people to pick the “lesser of two” evils rather than picking the party they truly support. This, I believe, explains why 1/3 of the voting public claims to be independent—they’re not satisfied with either of the two existing “brands.”
So as a result, a huge part of the population votes based on whichever issue is of greatest concern to them at the time of that election. And this decision is based in great part to a something along the lines of Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In tough times, voters will align to the party that will better provide for their physical or financial well being. In good times, they will vote for the party that will better help them fulfill their emotional or spiritual desires.
This helps to explain how Bush received enough votes to win the electoral vote in 2000. The majority of the population felt secure financially after years of strong economic growth and stock market gains. Prior to Sep. 11, people didn’t fear terrorism or war. So they voted based on their views of issues like morality in society, abortion, environmental policy, etc.
But how many people would vote differently today, because their job going overseas is more important that their child’s ability to hold prayer circles in school; or would vote differently because they now see a need for stronger defense?
But these are decisions that voters are forced to make, because there are not 3 or 6 or 10 parties from which to choose.
Posted by: blipsman at November 30, 2003 11:07 PMFirst off let me apologize for my ignorance of the teachings of Adam Smith — he was someone I studied in High School and I wouldn’t put it past my teachers to generalize their statements so we could grasp things. But I wouldn’t call the wanton imposing of tarrifs (on steel, on microchips, and even on Vietnamese catfish!) a good way to control an economy, I think it does more to hurt us than help us, actually (look at the EU vs. US banana issue that went on for years). Yes, it may help protect American jobs in the short term but, if the companies are allowed to stagnate under the government’s protection, then they won’t really be able to compete when and if the protections are removed. Look at the economy of Cuba or any of the old Eastern Block countries under communism.
There are enough news and media sources for us to get our information from (especially with the Internet!) but many people seem to not want to search out anything more than they have to. If they aren’t going to look up a candidates stance on certain issues, what impetus is there for them to actually go out and vote? Especially if their polling place is not in a “convenient” location for them. I feel a personal duty and responsibility to vote but I know of numerous occasions where I’ve heard others complain about having to wait in line to vote — and I can agree with them in some cases but, as members of a democracy, we need to contribute to that democracy for it to function correctly.
If we had more parties and more candidates, I’d be worried that people would make even less informed decisions. They would be presented with so many choices that it would end up being more like shopping for clothes detergent or dish soap (where men gravitate towards the cheapest price and women exhibit more brand loyalty) than an election race. People will go with the “person they know” rather than the best-qualified person (um, California?).
Posted by: huxley75 at December 1, 2003 10:49 AMThere is what is right, and what is wrong, and there are many ways to be both, but only one reality to be either way within.
You can have ten parties, a hundred parties, and have each and every one of them in serious error, if none are willing to be open-minded about the way their ideals collide with the real world. Currently, the Republicans are in such a position, trying to make excessive spending and unwise tax cuts work, along with a War in Iraq that they keep on trying to make work according to their old plan.
But sometimes I’m stunned at the lack of imagination or creative thought that occurs within the Democrats. The liberal line has become a little fossilized, not in spirit, but in form. Makes no difference. As long as neither political party is willing to take on new concerns, compromise, or bring new life to important, we will have only gridlock and the same old rhetoric to deal with.
Posted by: Steve Daugherty at December 1, 2003 11:18 AM“we will have only gridlock and the same old rhetoric to deal with”
Exactly! It seems as though we’re getting made-for-TV versions of politicians who water down any views with the sole purpose of jacking up their approval ratings or poll results — and both the Republican and Democratic parties are looking for people who don’t stick their neck out (too far) and can keep the stats data on an ever increasing trend. It’s as though politicians (and/or their advisors) see the electorate as a type of search engine that they can dupe, pushing them to the top of the list while the other, more meaningful and relevant candidates, fall to the bottom and are ignored. Toss in the right mixture or keywords, repeat often enough, pat the back of the right compatriot and you’re networked/linked to the contacts which will return the best results…I won’t even push the analogy into buying up keywords or paying for placement.
Posted by: huxley75 at December 2, 2003 10:09 AMThere are two areas of concern I have with Political Pigeonholes, the Democratic entry onto WatchBlog for November 30, 2003. First is huxley75’s insistence, despite evidence that he provides, on a one-dimensional political analysis. Second is his theory that policy decisions are to be made based upon the individual’s benefits.
As huxley75 points out in much of the initial portion of his essay, the left / right (liberal / conservative) political continuum results in labels that fit less well than a fits-all suit. Despite labeling himself a Democrat (after all, that’s the label he’s posting under), he claims to be an adherent of laissez faire economics. He also states that he has other conservative views. He must be basing his self-identification on his social / labor views.
But by his labeling, he’s attempting to place a complicated set of views into a one-dimensional scale. This is akin to attempting to describe a person physically while limiting yourself to one measure, height. Personally, I am the approximately same height as Bruce Lee. Unfortunately, I weigh far more, and am in far worse shape. But by putting me in the same physical category as Bruce Lee, you have created a label for me.
A better approach would be a two dimensional approach. This has been done at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html. If you take the ten-question test, you will be placed on a plane, rather than a line. On the plane, you’ll find the traditional positions of liberal and conservative, but you’ll also see where certain views do not fit well in a one-dimensional space.
The quiz’s two axis are the amount of individual freedom you desire, and the amount of economic freedom you desire. It wouldn’t be that difficult to find two other axes to use in your analysis.
But this test is limited in that it is limited to two dimensions. It is easy for me to conceive of a three-dimensional mapping of political views. I can think three dimensionally. Pragmatically, it is difficult to prepare a nice pretty three-dimensional picture of the political map, so there are disadvantages to a three dimensional political space.
Mathematically you can express any number of dimensions. The communication problem with non-mathematicians becomes even harder. Do we really want mathematicians to determine what the valid axes are for political analysis? (I’m imagining support for the NSF and educational funding as being primary axes, but I digress.)
At any rate, only by moving past the one-dimensional left / right, liberal / conservative spectrum can huxley75 stop complain about how his views don’t always align with his chosen label. Huxley75 would be better served by finding a better model of political philosophies.
Moving from the one-dimensional worldview, we come to paragraph four. Here, huxley75 states that many people “who are now out of work supported NAFTA [without] realizing its implications.” In other words, we are to choose our political views based upon how the enacting of those views will personally impact us, not on the overall impact of those policies or on their moral qualities.
Other examples of viewpoints based upon self-interest include:
• The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has produced numerous studies on the negative impact of repealing the income tax. However, the biggest impact will be on the members of the AICPA, who receive over 50% of their fees from tax services.
• Males opposed allowing women to vote because it would dilute the impact of the individual male vote. Whites opposed allowing non-whites to vote because it would dilute the impact of the individual white vote. Landowners opposed allowing non-landowners to vote because it would dilute the impact of the landowner’s individual vote.
• Voters continually reelect their representatives not based upon their views and votes on national issues, but because the representative brings home the bacon in pork barrel projects that have no national significance.
• People oppose NAFTA because their salary may go down, not considering the gains in salaries for other employees or in the overall gain to the economies of several countries.
Shortsighted individual self-interest tends to be the worst basis by which political judgments can be made. But this is the one which huxley75 appears to favor.
So what can we think about huxley75’s initial question? Why do the labels, which at least worked for some of the people some of the time, appear to be breaking down? I contend that the two major political parties chasing political power at the expense of any principles they once held are the cause for the breakdown in label definitions. How else do you explain:
• President Clinton embracing welfare reform, a “republican” issue.
• President Clinton claiming credit for a balanced budget, a “republican” issue.
• President Clinton funding large increases in the number of police on the streets, a “republican” issue.
• President Bush and the Republican Congress increasing federal spending at a rate never before seen, a “democratic” issue.
• President Bush and the Republican Congress enacting a new government entitlement program with a lot of upside potential, a “democratic” issue.
• President Bush enacting protectionist tariffs, a “democratic” issue.
As long as the two major political parties are motivated by the grasp of power, labels based upon any sort of principle will be a poor match to reality. And name-calling based solely on political affiliation will increase.
After all, in a one-dimensional world, if one side is the winner, then the other must be the loser. And in such a world, we’re all losers.
