Voice and the People
Someone just reminded me of this — it’s a response to a statement made by a fellow that this is “a strange time in our body politic” and that “Anyone who claims to undnerstand what’s going on needs a dose of humility,” to which the following post owes it’s perhaps peculiar structure.
. . .
Apparently I need a dose of humility. I think a lot of this is clear and has been coming for some time.
I would suggest that the perception of many, if not most, of the people who post here is skewed through, for example, viewing the GOP through the lens of, also for example, northeast Republicans — who dominate the right wing view point in the media in addition to being the sort that most people who, say, post here know personally. They may have been running the party, but they don’t control all the voters and their articulation of the issues, views, and politics is not, in my opinion representative of many of those who identify as conservative. Similarly, on the left, there has been simmering resentment over compromise going back to Bill Clinton who is hailed by some as making great compromises but by others as selling out the more leftist elements of his party unnecessarily.
There may be an inherent irony in this phenomenon that probably deserves a name, as it is not unrelated to “the median voter theory,” except that it has not name because it’s sorta original to me — this is the first time I’ve articulated it too. But the median voter theory suggests that, in a two party system, the candidates will move towards the center just enough to capture just enough of the vote to win the election in our first-past-the-post system — hence, the median voter. In practice, the idea is that this will capture the necessary electoral support while dissatisfied voters in the wings will still see it as a mini-max solution where at least they’re better off this way than with the candidate from the other “side” — the classic historical example of this has been the Democrat party’s pooh-poohing of the issues facing African Americans because it’s not like they’re going to vote Republican because that’s worse.
More recently, though, many American, often those associated with fly-over country but which increasingly has permeated the sensibilities of urban and even wealthier types (though much more quietly in the media as it’s a harder narrative to process), have felt that the GOP has not been giving voice to their concerns and is taking them for granted. This pretty much began with Ralph Reed “discovering” and mobilizing the evangelical vote as a block, getting them excited, but being the first in a number of political operatives to use them but not really give them what they want — but once they’re voting, where are they going to go? Vote for a Democrat? Not bleeding likely.
I believe the Sarah Palin uprising was emblematic of this. Media and political elites have busied themselves with making fun of how batshit insane she is without recognizing that she’s simply symptomatic of something much more important, which is a mobilization of people who feel they have no voice seeking one. She may have been among the first to latch on to them parasitically and claimed to be that voice because she seems to have a gift for opportunism, but that is only possible if you have a mass of people who feel voiceless looking for a mouthpiece.
So, getting back to the ironic phenomenon in need of a name: What happens if the logic of the median voter reverses itself because the political landscape gets sufficiently spread out on both sides such that capturing the center no longer ensures a candidate 50.1% of the voting public?
We may not be there in terms of people voting with their feet, as GOTV matters and we only count those who vote. But those who stay home because they feel inadequately represented may continue to fester and fuel the progression towards the phenomenon in question. But the very fact that the idea of whether or not huge blocs of voters will be voting for the other candidate in their own party is dominating so much conversation is indicative of the phenomenon progressing.
So, bracketing the voting issue, the phenomenon restated: What happens if the logic of the median voter reverses itself because the political landscape gets sufficiently spread out on both sides such that capturing the center no longer represents even a small majority of the public?
One of the reasons that the Framers gave in the Federalist for the preference for a large republic where elected officials represented larger geographical areas was that it would have a moderating effect on representatives because the larger the population, the more varied the interests represented, which would make stable factions based on common interests impossible; given the diversity of issues facing a population of sufficient size and covering sufficient area, any given voter would find herself in the majority on one issue but the minority on another, which would require issue triage and compromise.
What, then, if technology develops to the point of overcoming this structural barrier in our constitutional regime? We now have the technology to relocate ourselves geographically with greater ease and comfort to live among like-minded people through lowered barriers facing travel, distance from work (think: telecommuting, a once significant innovation now simply called “working remotely”), and basic creature comforts; the political scientist Nelson Polsby has shown quite convincingly that the development of affordable household air conditioning reshaped our policy by allowing northern conservatives to relocate to the South in comfort.
Moreover, some of that same technology increasingly allows us to form quasi-civic bonds of political significance that transcend geography itself, a prospect once unthinkable. People can congregate online and find like-minded people, perhaps ones who consume similar media sources in a greatly decentralized and proliferated market of ideas. Perhaps this explains the rise and similar proliferation of conferences, made possible by transportation technology (and expedited by the quirk of third-party payment in the form of business expenses) that allow people to associate in person more frequently with like-minded folk who share their interests.
Ultimately, our modern social condition is marked by forces that loosen the civic ties that forged communities of neighbors. There is great freedom in this, allowing individuals to form ties with those of their choosing, ostensibly people whom they respect and who value them for who they are. This may be expected to form different sorts of individuals and polities, however, as the need to face and find common cause with those who disagree with us may increasingly lack the force of necessity it once held; we can avoid inconvenient and, perhaps, unpleasant disagreement and find comfort and solace among the likeminded friends with whom we have formed common cause — indeed, many of us are likely to think we reside in a solid majority of right-thinking folk and view the rarely viewed dissenting opinions as aberrant. Surely all these intelligent people who agree cannot be wrong!
And this may be the source of great comfort to many, and provide a pleasant living experience through personal validation and a sense of belonging. But it is important to recognize that those goods come with the ability to overcome the very forces that were recognized and harnessed to drive us, as citizens, towards an understanding of the common good. That out politicians can’t seem to find a spot in the political spectrum that approximates such common cause is to be expected, even as we castigate for this failing of ourselves to establish one.
Or maybe it’s just strange and I need a dose of humility.
[Ed. Note: Thank you to 8Slim of sonsofsamhorn.net for reminding me of this. It was written on… oh geez. Feb. 14, 2016. Heh. Further searching in the archives of that site yield fragments as far back as November, 2013, and I know there was stuff in response to the Palin Phenomenon but I don’t seem to have a key to that particular file cabinet, tucked away deep in the basement behind a door that says “Beware of the leopard,” or so I like to imagine.]
