Go Ahead, Blame the Internet for DC Shutdown (Hint: It’s Gerrymandering + Filter Bubble)
To understand the impact of the Internet, first look to game theory not psychology
Are you looking to blame the Internet for something? Forget what you’ve read in most popular media. It’s not making people more angry, narcissistic or lonely. But go ahead and blame it for the current dysfunction in DC. Along with gerrymandering, the internet is responsible for contributing to the conditions in which it makes sense for a small group of hardline Republican representatives to create gridlock and bring the government of the most powerful nation earth to a halt.
Not a week goes by in which a headline in a major new outlet doesn't claim that the Internet turns us into something or other. The internet has been blamed for everything from stupidity to narcissism to loneliness to anger. When you dig down into such stories, you often find that the popular writers have either misunderstood the study—which often merely shows that the Internet reflects offline realities –or are cherry picking small, outlier studies while ignoring the preponderance of the research. (Yes, people who score high on offline narcissism scales behave in more narcissistic ways online. Yes, anger spreads more quickly online compared to other emotions. But guess what? Well-established research shows anger also spreads more quickly offline.) Overall, there is scant evidence, or reason, that the Internet alters fundamentals of human psychology.
The internet doesn’t change the players. It does, however, change the game. Sometimes, drastically.
In other words, if you want to understand what the Internet changes, look first to game theory, not psychology. We don’t have a different kind of human as a result of the Internet. We do, however, have different kinds of structures which change the games humans play in their social, personal and political lives.
So, how did we get to a situation in which a small number of Republican lawmakers can bring about a shutdown of much of the U.S. government when it is clear that even the traditional, institutional Republican Party leadership wasn’t on board with that plan? To highlight this disparity, recall that prominent conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer called the 60 to 80 Republican representatives who have engineered the government shutdown the “suicide caucus.” He –along with many prominent Republicans— thinks this “suicide caucus” are killing the Republican Party’s chances in the next election. Krauthammer may or may not be right about the damage to the party as a whole, but these representatives are certainly not killing their own chances, or their careers. They are, in fact, playing a rational game in which their own incentives clash with those of their party.
How does this work? Simple. First, gerrymander. Then create a “filter bubble” in which you only or mostly talk with and hear from people who already agree with you. Proceed.
Gerrymandering is the system by which electoral districts are drawn in a way to advantage one party over the other, and to empower incumbents in all cases. The Republican Party won many victories in state legislatures in 2010 elections and thus won the right to redraw districts to ensure their continued reelection.
Here’s how it works in principle. Imagine a state composed of 101 people and four districts. Imagine the state is divided 50/51 among Republicans and Democrats. Stuff 26 Democrats into one district and then put the rest of the Democrats into each district, 8 at a time, to face at least 13 Republicans per district. Voila: Three comfortable Republican districts against one Democrat even though the Democrats had a slight overall majority. (And none of them will have competitive elections between the two parties: thanks to gerrymendaring, the primary is where the game is at).
Of course, it’s not always that easy to be that lopsided but gerrymandering can and does make a significant difference. In 2012, House Democrats won a slight plurality of the number of votes (1.4% more than Republicans) in the country in congressional elections but lost the US House by 17 seats due to gerrymandering effects.
This system creates a political game in which the only way many Republic candidates can lose his or her seat is by losing a challenge in the primary to another Republican, which in the current political environment means a Tea Party challenger. (This would likely be true for Democrats as well if Occupy wasn’t so opposed to engaging in electoral politics, but that’s another story). Increasingly, the only incentive for a Republican representative is to not be challenged from the right. This story in the New Yorker traces the demographic and electoral composition of the “suicide caucus” who have shut down the government, and finds an alternate reality:
The average suicide-caucus district is seventy-five per cent white, while the average House district is sixty-three per cent white. Latinos make up an average of nine per cent of suicide-district residents, while the over-all average is seventeen per cent. The districts also have slightly lower levels of education (twenty-five per cent of the population in suicide districts have college degrees, while that number is twenty-nine per cent for the average district).
The members themselves represent this lack of diversity. Seventy-six of the members who signed the Meadows letter [asking Boehner to shut down the government rather than implement Obamacare] are male. Seventy-nine of them are white.
Against this backdrop of gerrymandered, white, conservative districts, add the “filter bubble” created by the mix of Fox News, conservative talk radio, conservative web sites and, now, social media. This creates an environment in which those representatives, many of whom who were elected to “safe seats” by challenging fellow Republicans from the right, can only benefit from increased polarization and a fight with the democrats. So that’s what we have.
To the point, The New Republic surveyed some top conservative websites and outlets. When nation’s top newspapers were all leading with the shutdown, the National Review led with Michelle Obama’s campaign to get Americans to drink more water. National Review wants to talk, in general terms, about how Obama’s transforming America. And so on.
Robert Costa, Washington editor of the conservative National Review, puts it explicitly:
What we’re seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power. … Many of these members now live in the conservative world of talk radio and tea party conventions and Fox News invitations. And so the conservative strategy of the moment, no matter how unrealistic it might be, catches fire. … [Costa explains that thanks to gerrymendaring] They don’t face consequences for taking these hardline positions.
Take Ohio Representative Brad Wenstrup—one of the many “Tea Party” candidates who got to Congress by defeating an establishment Republican incumbent, in this case four-time congresswoman Jean Schmidt. For Wenstrup, defeating Schmidt in the Republican primary for Ohio’s 2nd district, which traditionally elects Republicans, was the hard part: he beat her 49 percent to 43 percent. After that, winning the district was easy: he beat the democratic challenger William Smith 59 to 41.
Since then, Wenstrup makes regular appearances on Fox News but not other outlets, and posts regularly on Facebook on Twitter where his fans urge him to keep “fighting the good fight.” Comments on Wenstrup’s Facebook page run about 90% pro shutdown with only a few dissents. “Proud of your stance!” and “Fight the good fight!” are common refrains. Meanwhile, national polls show that 72% oppose shutting down the government to defund “Obamacare.” However, back home in Wenstrup’s 90% white district, opposition to Obama runs strong enough that such national polls are of no risk to him.
Game theorists have long examined such environments when gridlock –or destruction— is ensured by the rules of the game. Homophily –birds of a feather stick together— is a fundamental feature of human social order. We seek and stick with people like us. Homophily helps people who would otherwise feel alone and isolated find strength in each other. It’s the same dynamic we cheer on when patients with rare diseases find each other in websites like “patients like me” and exchange moral support and practical tips. The Internet also helps dissidents in authoritarian societies to find and sustain communities in face of repression.
But homophily isn’t just for the team you like. The internet also helps anti-vaccine activists find and sustain a community. It helps political communities of all stripes gather for strength. Coupled with an ideological stance that values opposing this president, bolstered by gerrymandering and protected by a filter bubble that is not created solely by the Internet (cable news and talk radio are also crucial) but is certainly bolstered by it, the portion of the House Republican caucus that brought this on is playing a game in which it cannot lose seats or supporters.
There are many things you shouldn’t blame on the Internet but now there is one you most definitely can: The shutdown is directly linked to a digitally enhanced echo chamber, which now surrounds all of those who choose the comforts of homophily over the thrill and challenge of the different. The internet makes both of them more available, but homophily is vastly more attractive to those in the corridors of power, who prefer the safety of easy reelection by like-minded supporters even if it comes at the expense of their government and even the interests of their own party.
