![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Louis Menand on voting patterns in the New Yorker.
Only about 10% of voters are "ideologues", in the sense of having a consistent set of political beliefs. (Where "consistent" means basic logical consistency -- like not wanting to cut taxes, lower the deficit, and increase spending at the same time.) About 42% of voters have a political affiliation, but pick candidates based on their own perceived self-interest. Think Pennsylvania steelworkers. They might claim to be union Democrats, but will vote for whoever promises higher tariffs. The rest don't make any sense at all -- these are the people that cause post-convention "bounces", even though nothing of significance happens at them.
Menand suggests (hopefully) that perhaps the rest of the voters aren't as operationally ignorant as it might seem, if they are taking their cues from the political elites. I agree this is plausible (what is a political party, after all, other than a big 'ol cue), but I don't assume the elites know what they are talking about either. I mean, how can you anything meaningful about trade policy without understanding economics or global warming without knowing climatology -- and how often has that ignorance stopped any talking head from saying anything?
I conceive of democracy as ensuring that a) government policy will be merely bad, rather than transcendentally stupid (which is what happens when an autocrat gets a bug up his ass), and b) the government can climb down from a disastrous policy without losing legitimacy (because it will get re-legitimized in the next election). I think b) is the core problem that hampers resolution of the Israel-Palestine problem, and the India-Pakistan problem. In both cases, you've got P, a non-democratic authority which has staked its legitimacy on conflict with I. The leaders of P can't significantly compromise without risking a rebellion.
Only about 10% of voters are "ideologues", in the sense of having a consistent set of political beliefs. (Where "consistent" means basic logical consistency -- like not wanting to cut taxes, lower the deficit, and increase spending at the same time.) About 42% of voters have a political affiliation, but pick candidates based on their own perceived self-interest. Think Pennsylvania steelworkers. They might claim to be union Democrats, but will vote for whoever promises higher tariffs. The rest don't make any sense at all -- these are the people that cause post-convention "bounces", even though nothing of significance happens at them.
Menand suggests (hopefully) that perhaps the rest of the voters aren't as operationally ignorant as it might seem, if they are taking their cues from the political elites. I agree this is plausible (what is a political party, after all, other than a big 'ol cue), but I don't assume the elites know what they are talking about either. I mean, how can you anything meaningful about trade policy without understanding economics or global warming without knowing climatology -- and how often has that ignorance stopped any talking head from saying anything?
I conceive of democracy as ensuring that a) government policy will be merely bad, rather than transcendentally stupid (which is what happens when an autocrat gets a bug up his ass), and b) the government can climb down from a disastrous policy without losing legitimacy (because it will get re-legitimized in the next election). I think b) is the core problem that hampers resolution of the Israel-Palestine problem, and the India-Pakistan problem. In both cases, you've got P, a non-democratic authority which has staked its legitimacy on conflict with I. The leaders of P can't significantly compromise without risking a rebellion.
